Advertisement

Evaluating Domain Design Approaches Using Systematic Review

  • Ednaldo Dilorenzo de Souza Filho
  • Ricardo de Oliveira Cavalcanti
  • Danuza F. S. Neiva
  • Thiago H. B. Oliveira
  • Liana Barachisio Lisboa
  • Eduardo Santana de Almeida
  • Silvio Romero de Lemos Meira
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5292)

Abstract

Software Product Lines are growing as a systematic way for achieving reuse in software companies. It involves three processes: domain engineering, application engineering and management. In domain engineering, assets that will be reused by products are developed, composing the core assets. In this context, the product line architecture, also called Domain Specific Software Architecture (DSSA), is an essential member in the collection of core assets. A good DSSA increases the probability of the success of applications that will be instantiated from it. In order to design a good DSSA, a process should be followed to manage domain’s variability and commonality. On the other hand, companies that are moving from single system development to software product lines need systematic activities for taking advantage of existing assets to develop a DSSA. Thus, this paper presents a systematic review on domain design approaches, which can be useful for companies to understand the current scenario, and to choose a more suitable one or adapt them for their needs.

Keywords

Software Reuse Software Product Line Architecture Domain Engineering Systematic Review Software Design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    America, P., Obbink, H., van Ommering, R., van der Linden, F.: Copam: A component-oriented platform architecting method family for product family engineering (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, C.: Component-based product line development: The kobrA approach, pp. 289–309 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, C.: Component-based Product Line Engineering with UML. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atkinson, C., Bayer, J., Laitenberger, O., Zettel, J.: Component-based software engineering: The kobra approach (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson, C., Muthig, D.: Model-driven product line architecture (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayer, J., Flege, O., Knauber, P., Laqua, R., Muthig, D., Schmid, K., Widen, T., DeBaud, J.-M.: Pulse: A methodology to develop software product lines (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blois, A.P.T.B.: A Component-based Architectural Design Approach in the Domain Engineering Context. PhD thesis, UFRJ (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosch, J.: Evolution and composition of reusable assets in product-line architectures: A case study (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clements, P.: Software Product Lines - SEI Framework (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Almeida, E.S.: RiDE - RiSE Domain Engineering Process. PhD thesis (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    DeBaud, J.-M., Flege, O., Knauber, P.: Pulse-dssa a method for the development of software reference architectures (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gomaa, H.: Designing Software Product Lines with UML: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kang: Form: A feature-oriented reuse method with domain-specific reference architectures (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-oriented domain analysis (foda) feasibility study. Technical report, Carnegie-Mellon University Software Engineering Institute (November 1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kitchenham, B.: Procedures for performing systematic reviews (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process An Introduction. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Loughran, N., Sánchez, P., Gámez, N., Garcia, A., Fuentes, L., Christa, S., Kovacevic, J.: Survey on state-of-the-art in product line architecture design. Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matinlassi, M.: Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: Copa, fast, form, kobra and qada (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matinlassi, M., Niemela, E., Dobrica, L.: Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method, a revolutionary initiation approach to a product line architecture (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Obbink, H., Mïller, J., America, P., van Ommering, R.: Copa a component-oriented platform architecting method for families of software-intensive electronic products (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pohl, K., Backle, G., van der Linden, F.: Software Product Line Engineering Foundations, Principles, and Techniques. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weiss, D.: Software product-line engineering: a family-based software development process. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ednaldo Dilorenzo de Souza Filho
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ricardo de Oliveira Cavalcanti
    • 1
  • Danuza F. S. Neiva
    • 1
  • Thiago H. B. Oliveira
    • 1
    • 2
  • Liana Barachisio Lisboa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Eduardo Santana de Almeida
    • 2
  • Silvio Romero de Lemos Meira
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Federal University of Pernambuco (UFPE) 
  2. 2.Recife Center for Advanced Studies and Systems (C.E.S.A.R) 

Personalised recommendations