Using Federations for Flexible SCM Systems

  • Jacky Estublier
  • Anh-Tuyet Le
  • Jorge Villalobos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2649)


SCM products are large and monolithic, difficult to adapt and evolve, with high entry cost. This paper describes a new approach to SCM in which the system is built from, potentially heterogeneous, existing pieces, with assembly mechanisms that enforce high-level properties. The approach does not provide a simple SCM tool, but a family of tools that is easily customized, fits both low-end users (only the required functionalities are present at a very low cost), as well as high-end users (for which very advanced features and/or specific features can be easily added). The paper describes the concepts and mechanisms of federations, and shows how our federation technology was used to develop a family of SCM systems.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Jean Bezivin and Sébastient Gérard. A Preliminary Identification of MDA ComponentsGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Desmond D. Souza, Model-Driven Architecture and Integration Opportunities and Challenges. White paper.
  3. [3]
    P. Dourish and V. Belloti: “Awareness and Coordination in Shared Work Spaces”. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’92)Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Dsouza, D. Model-Driven Architecture and Integration: Opportunities and Challenges Version 1.1, document available at, February 2001
  5. [5]
    J. Estublier: “Distributed objects for Concurrent Engineering”. 9th International Symposium on System Configuration Management in the European Software Engineering Conference. Toulouse, France, September 1999Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Estublier, S. Dami, and M. Amiour. “APEL: A graphical yet Executable Formalism for Process Modelling”. Automated Software Engineering, ASE journal. Vol. 5, Issue 1, 1998Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Estublier, J.M. Favre, and P. Morat. “Toward an integration SCM / PDM”. SCM8, Brussels, 20–21 July 1998. In LNCS 1439, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Jacky Estublier and Anh-Tuyet LE. Design and development of Software Federation. ICSSEA 2001, Paris, 4–6 December 2001Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Jacky Estublier, Pierre-Yves Cunin, and Noureddine Belkhatir. An architecture for process support interoperability. ICSP 5, Pages 137–147. 15–17 June 1998 Chicago, Illinois, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    M. Franklin, M, Carey, and M. Livny: “Transactional Client-Server Cache Consistency: Alternatives and Performance”. ACM Transactions on Database Systems, Vol. 22 No. 3. September 1997Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    A. Gokhale, D.C. Schmidt, B. Natarajan, and N. Wang: “Applying Model-Integrated Computing to Component Middleware and Enterprise Applications”. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45, No. 10. October 2002Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. Godart, F. Charoy, O. Perrin, and H. Skaf-Molli: “Cooperative Workflows to Coordinate Asynchronous Cooperative Applications in a Simple Way”. 7th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS’00). Iwate, Japan, July 2000Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    P. Molli, H. Skaf-Molli, and C. Bouthier: “State Treemap: An Awareness Widget for Multi-Synchronous Groupware”. 7th International Workshop on Groupware (CRIWG’01). September 2001Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    OMG. A UML Profile for Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Joint Final Submission. 21 November 2002Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    OMG Model Driven Architecture A Technical Perspective Architecture Board MDA Drafting Team Draft 21st February 2001Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    A. Personn, I. Crnkovic, M. Larsson: “Managing Complex Systems — Challenges for PDM and SCM”. 10th International Workshop on Software Configuration Management, in the International Conference on Software Engineering. Toronto, Canada, May 2001Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    John Poole. Model-Driven Architecture: Vision, Standards And Emerging Technologies. ECOOP 2002Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. Schmidt and U. Asmann: “Extending Aspect-Oriented-Programming in order to flexibly support workflows”. Aspect Oriented Programming Workshop in the International Conference on Software Engineering. Kyoto, Japan, April 1998Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Soley, R. and the OMG staff Model-Driven Architecture. White paper, Draft 3.2, document available at, November 2000
  20. [20]
    G. Valetto and G. Kaiser. Using Process Technology to Control and coordinate Software Adaptation. ICSE, Portland May 2003Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Herve Verjus. PhD Thesis. Chambery 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jacky Estublier
    • 1
  • Anh-Tuyet Le
    • 1
  • Jorge Villalobos
    • 1
  1. 1.LSR-IMAGGrenoble Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations