Modeling Variability for Object-Oriented Product Lines

  • Matthias Riebisch
  • Detlef Streitferdt
  • Ilian Pashov
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3013)


The concept of a software product line is a promising approach for increasing planned reusability in industry. For planning future requirements, the integration of domain analysis activities with software development for reusability turned out to be necessary, both from a process and from an economic point of view. In this context, variability of requirements in a domain is expressed by feature models. Feature models enable planning and strategic decisions both for architectural and for component development. By expressing feature dependencies, feature models are used to partition the architecture and the implementation. For industrial use, appropriate methods for modeling variability in requirements, design and implementation as well as tools for supporting feature models and for integrating them with other models are needed. The ECOOP workshop explored the possibilities and limitations of feature models and supporting methods. Its fully reviewed contributions aim at improving the feature model usage as well as the integration into the software development process. Improving industrial applicability of feature modeling and methods is an important goal. This paper provides a summary of the discussion and presents the major results as well as important questions and issues identified for future research.


Product Line Feature Model Software Product Line Modeling Variability Graphical Notation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., Corchuelo, R., Durán, A.: Seeking for Extra-Functional Variability. In: [21], pp. 58–63Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosch, J.: Design and use of software architectures - Adopting and evolving a product-line approach. Addison Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calder, M., Kolberg, M., Magill, M.H., Reiff-Marganiec, S.: Feature Interaction - A Critical Review and Considered Forecast. Elsevier: Computer Networks 41/1, 115–141 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CaptainFeature. Opensource Feature Modeling Tool, Available online at
  6. 6.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Generative Programming. Addison Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clauß, M.: A proposal for uniform abstract modeling of feature interactions in UML. In: Knudsen, J.L. (ed.) ECOOP 2001. LNCS, vol. 2072, Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ferber, A., Haag, J., Savolainen, J.: Feature Interaction and Dependencies - Modeling Features for Re-engineering a Legacy Product Line. In: Chastek, G.J. (ed.) SPLC 2002. LNCS, vol. 2379, pp. 235–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacobson, I., Griss, M., Jonsson, P.: Software Reuse Architecture, Process and Organization for Business Success. ACM Press, New York (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., Peterson, A.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-021, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang, K., Kim, S., Lee, J., Kim, K., Shin, E., Huh, M.: FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain-Specific Reference Architectures. Annals of Software Engineering 5, 143–168 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kang, K.C., Lee, K., Lee, J.: FOPLE - Feature Oriented Product Line Software Engineering: Principles and Guidelines. Pohang University of Science and Technology (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kotonya, G., Sommerville, I.: Requirements Engineering - Processes and Techniques (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Krebs, T., Hotz, L.: Needed Expressiveness for Representing Features and Customer Requirements. In: [21], pp. 23–31Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, J., Kang, K.C.: Feature Binding Issues in Variability Analysis for Product Line Engineering. In: [21], pp. 77–82Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliveira, T.C., Alencar, P., Cowan, D.: Towards a declarative approach to framework instantiation. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Declarative Meta-Programming (DMP 2002), Edinburgh, Scotland, September 2002, pp. 5–9 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    de Oliveira, T.C., Filho, I.M., Alencar, P., de Lucena, C.J.P., Cowan, D.C.: Feature Driven Framework Instantiation. In: [21], pp. 1–22Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pashov, I., Riebisch, M.: Using Feature Modeling for Program Comprehension and Software Architecture Recovery. In: Proceedings 10th IEEE Symposium and Workshops on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (ECBS 2003), Huntsville Alabama, USA, April 7-11, pp. 297–304. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Philippow, I., Streitferdt, D., Riebisch, M.: Design Pattern Recovery in Architectures for Supporting Product Line Development and Application. In: [21], pp. 42–57Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Riebisch, M., Böllert, K., Streitferdt, D., Philippow, I.: Extending Feature Diagrams with UML Multiplicities. In: 6th World Conference on Integrated Design & Process Technology (IDPT 2002), Pasadena, CA, USA, June 23-27 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riebisch, M., Coplien, J.O., Streitferdt, D. (eds.): Modelling Variability for Object- Oriented Product Lines. BookOnDemand Publ. Co, Norderstedt (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Riebisch, M.: Towards a More Precise Definition of Feature Models. In: [21], pp. 64–76Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Robak, S.: Modeling Variability for Software Product Families. In: [21], pp. 32–41Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sametinger, J., Riebisch, M.: Evolution Support by Homogeneously Documenting Patterns, Aspects and Traces. In: 6th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR 2002), Budapest, Hungary, March 11-13, pp. 134–140. Computer Society Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthias Riebisch
    • 1
  • Detlef Streitferdt
    • 1
  • Ilian Pashov
    • 1
  1. 1.Technical University IlmenauIlmenauGermany

Personalised recommendations