Advertisement

Supporting Incremental Synchronization in Hybrid Multi-view Modelling

  • Antonio Cicchetti
  • Federico Ciccozzi
  • Thomas Leveque
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7167)

Abstract

Multi-view modelling is a widely accepted technique to reduce the complexity in the development of modern software systems. It allows developers to focus on a narrowed portion of the specification dealing with a selected aspect of the problem. However, multi-view modelling support discloses a number of issues mainly due to consistency management, expressiveness, and customization needs. A possible solution to alleviate those problems is to adopt a hybrid solution for multi-view modelling based on an arbitrary number of custom views defined on top of an underlying modelling language. In this way it is possible to benefit from the consistency by-construction granted by well-formed views while at the same time providing malleable perspectives through which the system under development can be specified. In this respect, this paper presents an approach for supporting synchronization mechanism based on model differences in hybrid multi-view modelling. Model differences allow to focus only on the manipulations operated by the user in a particular view, and to propagate them to the other views in a incremental way thus reducing the overhead of a complete recomputation of modified models.

Keywords

Multi-view modelling separation of concerns model-driven engineering model synchronization higher-order model transformation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bézivin, J.: On the Unification Power of Models. Jour. on Software and Systems Modeling (SoSyM) 4(2), 171–188 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boulanger, F., Jacquet, C., Hardebolle, C., Rouis, E.: Modeling Heterogeneous Points of View with ModHel’X. In: Ghosh, S. (ed.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 6002, pp. 310–324. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chechik, M., Lai, W., Nejati, S., Cabot, J., Diskin, Z., Easterbrook, S., Sabetzadeh, M., Salay, R.: Relationship-based change propagation: A case study. In: MISE 2009, pp. 7–12. IEEE CS, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cicchetti, A., Ciccozzi, F., Krekola, M., Mazzini, S., Panunzio, M., Puri, S., Santamaria, C., Vardanega, T., Zovi, A.: CHESS Tool presentation. In: 1st TOPCASED Days, Toulouse (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cicchetti, A., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A.: A Metamodel Independent Approach to Difference Representation. Journal of Object Technology 6, 165–185 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cicchetti, A., Ciccozzi, F., Leveque, T.: A hybrid approach for multi-view modeling. Electronic Communications of the EASST 10 (2011), to appear in the Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Multi-Paradigm Modeling (MPM)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cicchetti, A., Ciccozzi, F., Leveque, T., Sentilles, S.: Evolution management of extra-functional properties in component-based embedded systems. In: The 14th Int’l ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component Based Software Engineering (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conallen, J.: Modeling Web Application Architectures with UML. Comm. ACM 42(10), 63–71 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Del Fabro, M.D., Bézivin, J., Jouault, F., Breton, E., Gueltas, G.: AMW: a Generic Model Weaver. In: Procs. of IDM 2005 (2005)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elrad, T., Aldawud, O., Bader, A.: Aspect-Oriented Modeling: Bridging the Gap between Implementation and Design. In: Batory, D., Blum, A., Taha, W. (eds.) GPCE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2487, pp. 189–201. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO/IEC/(IEEE): ISO/IEC 42010 (IEEE Std) 1471-2000 : Systems and Software engineering - Recommended practice for architectural description of software-intensive systems (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolovos, D.S., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A., Paige, R.F.: Different models for model matching: An analysis of approaches to support model differencing. In: Procs. of the ICSE Workshop on Comparison and Versioning of Software Models (CVSM 2009), pp. 1–6. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miotto, E., Vardanega, T.: On the integration of domain-specific and scientific bodies of knowledge in model driven engineering. In: Procs. of STANDRTS 2009, Dublin, Ireland (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nassar, M.: VUML : a Viewpoint oriented UML Extension. In: Procs. of ASE 2003, pp. 373–376. IEEE Computer Society (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Romero, J.R., Jaen, J.I., Vallecillo, A.: Realizing correspondences in multi-viewpoint specifications. In: Procs. of the 13th IEEE EDOC, Auckland, New Zealand, September 1-4, pp. 163–172. IEEE CS (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmidt, D.C.: Guest Editor’s Introduction: Model-Driven Engineering. Computer 39(2), 25–31 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vangheluwe, H.L.M.: DEVS as a Common Denominator for Multi-formalism Hybrid Systems Modelling, pp. 129–134 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio Cicchetti
    • 1
  • Federico Ciccozzi
    • 1
  • Thomas Leveque
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Innovation, Design and Engineering - MRTCMälardalen UniversityVästeråsSweden

Personalised recommendations