Live modeling enables modelers to incrementally update models as they are running and get immediate feedback about the impact of their changes. Changes introduced in a model may trigger inconsistencies between the model and its run-time state (e.g., deleting the current state in a statemachine); effectively requiring to migrate the run-time state to comply with the updated model. In this paper, we introduce an approach that enables to automatically migrate such runtime state based on declarative constraints defined by the language designer. We illustrate the approach using Nextep, a meta-modeling language for defining invariants and migration constraints on run-time state models. When a model changes, Nextep employs model finding techniques, backed by a solver, to automatically infer a new run-time model that satisfies the declared constraints. We apply Nextep to define migration strategies for two DSLs, and report on its expressiveness and performance. CCS Concepts • Software and its engineering → Domain specific languages; Software prototyping; • Theory of computation → Programming logic;

No abstract

In the context of model-driven engineering, the dynamic (execution) semantics of domain-specific languages (DSLs) is usually not specified explicitly and stays (hard) coded in model transformations and code generation. This poses challenges such as learning, debugging, understanding, maintaining, and updating a DSL. Facing the lack of supporting tools for specifying the dynamic semantics of DSLs (or programming languages in general), we propose to specify the architecture and the detailed design of the software that implements the DSL, rather than requirements for the behavior expected from DSL programs. To compose such a specification, we use specification templates that capture software design solutions typical for the (application) domain of the DSL. As a result, on the one hand, our approach allows for an explicit and clear definition of the dynamic semantics of a DSL, supports separation of concerns and reuse of typical design solutions. On the other hand, we do not introduce (yet another) specification formalism, but we base our approach on an existing formalism and apply its extensive tool support for verification and validation to the dynamic semantics of a DSL.

No abstract

No abstract