Advertisement

Achieving Extensibility through Product-Lines and Domain-Specific Languages: A Case Study

  • Don Batory
  • Clay Johnson
  • Bob MacDonald
  • Dale von Heeder
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1844)

Abstract

This is a case study in the use of product-line architectures (PLAs) and domain-specific languages (DSLs) to design an extensible command-and-control simulator for Army fire support. The reusable components of our PLA are layers or “aspects” whose addition or removal simultaneously impacts the source code of multiple objects in multiple, distributed programs. The complexity of our component specifications is substantially reduced by using a DSL for defining and refining state machines, abstractions that are fundamental to simulators. We present preliminary results that show how our PLA and DSL synergistically produce a more flexible way of implementing state-machine-based simulators than is possible with a pure Java implementation.

Keywords

State Diagram Weapon System Reusable Component Class FoMission Mission Component 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    System Segment Specification (SSS) for the Fire Support Automated Test System (FSATS), Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas (1999); See also URL http://www.arlut.utexas.edu/~fsatswww/fsats.shtml
  2. 2.
    Batory, D., O’Malley, S.: The Design and Implementation of Hierarchical Software Systems with Reusable Components. ACM TOSEM (October 1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Batory, D., Lofaso, B., Smaragdakis, Y.: JTS: Tools for Implementing Domain- Specific Languages. In: 5th International Conference on Software Reuse, Victoria, Canada (June 1998), Also, http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/schwartz/JTS30Beta2.htm
  4. 4.
    Batory, D.: Product-Line Architectures. In: Smalltalk and Java Conference, Erfurt, Germany (October 1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Batory, D., Smaragdakis, Y., Coglianese, L.: Architectural Styles as Adaptors. In: Donohoe, P. (ed.) Software Architecture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baxter, I.: Design Maintenance Systems. CACM (April 1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry, G., Gonthier, G.: The Esterel Synchronous Programming language: Design, Semantics, and Implementation. Science of Computer Programming, 87–152 (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosch, J.: Product-Line Architectures in Industry: A Case Study. In: ICSE 1999, Los Angeles (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Czarnecki, K., Eisenecker, U.W.: Components and Generative Programming. ACM SIGSOFT (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chidamber, S.R., Kemerer, C.F.: Towards a Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design. In: OOPSLA 1991 (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Deursen, A., Klint, P.: Little Languages: Little Maintenance? In: SIGPLAN Workshop on Domain-Specific Languages (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ellsberger, J., Hogrefe, D., Sarma, A.: Formal Object-Oriented Language for Communicating Systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Findler, R.B., Flatt, M.: Modular Object-Oriented Programming with Units and Mixins. In: ICFP 1998 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gamma, E., et al.: Design Patterns Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
  16. 16.
    Goguen, J.A.: Reusing and Interconnecting Software Components. IEEE Computer (February 1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harel, D.: Statecharts: A Visual Formalism for Complex Systems. Science of Computer Programming, 231–274 (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harel, D., Gery, E.: Executable Object Modeling with Statecharts. In: ICSE 1996 (1996)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kiczales, G., Lamping, J., Mendhekar, A., Maeda, C., Lopes, C., Loingtier, J., Irwin, J.: Aspect-Oriented Programming. In: Aksit, M., Matsuoka, S. (eds.) ECOOP 1997. LNCS, vol. 1241, pp. 220–242. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    System Segment Specification (SSS) for the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS), Magnavox (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Neighbors, J.: DataXfer Protocol. BayFront Technologies (1997), http://bayfronttechnologies.com
  22. 22.
    Reenskaug, T., et al.: OORASS: Seamless Support for the Creation and Maintenance of Object-Oriented Systems. Journal of Object-Oriented Programming 5(6), 27–41 (1992)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Software Engineering Institute, The Product Line Practice (PLP) Initiative, http://www.sei.cmu.edu/plp/plp_init.html
  24. 24.
    Simonyi, C.: The Death of Computer Languages, the Birth of Intentional Programming. In: NATO Science Committee Conference (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smaragdakis, Y., Batory, D.: Implementing Layered Designs with Mixin Layers. In: Jul, E. (ed.) ECOOP 1998. LNCS, vol. 1445, p. 550. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Taylor, R.: Panel on Software Reuse. In: Motorola Software Engineering Symposium, Ft. Lauderdale (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tokuda, L., Batory, D.: Evolving Object-Oriented Architectures with Refactorings. In: Conf. on Automated Software Engineering, Orlando, Florida (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Hilst, M., Notkin, D.: Using Role Components to Implement Collaboration-Based Designs. In: OOPSLA 1996, pp. 359–369 (1996)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weiss, D.M., Lai, C.T.R.: Software Product-Line Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Don Batory
    • 1
  • Clay Johnson
    • 2
  • Bob MacDonald
    • 2
  • Dale von Heeder
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of Texas at AustinAustin
  2. 2.Applied Research LabsUniversity of Texas at AustinAustin

Personalised recommendations