A taxonomy of variability realization techniques

Svahnberg, Mikael; Gurp, Jilles van; Bosch, Jan

doi:10.1002/spe.652

Cited by 297 publications

(222 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

217

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…What are their core characteristics? While variability mechanisms in software product lines are reasonably well researched [10,11], their role in supporting a software ecosystem is much less understood [9]. In fact, developing models that describe ecosystems [12] and defining theories that explain concepts and causalities [13], are key research challenges in this field.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability mechanisms in software ecosystems

Berger

Pfeiffer

Tartler

et al. 2014

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Software ecosystems are increasingly popular for their economic, strategic, and technical advantages. Application platforms such as Android or iOS allow users to highly customize a system by selecting desired functionality from a large variety of assets. This customization is achieved using variability mechanisms. Objective: Variability mechanisms are well-researched in the context of software product lines. Although software ecosystems are often seen as conceptual successors, the technology that sustains their success and growth is much less understood. Our objective is to improve the empirical understanding of variability mechanisms used in successful software ecosystems. Method: We analyze five ecosystems, ranging from the Linux kernel through Eclipse to Android. A qualitative analysis identifies and characterizes variability mechanisms together with their organizational context. This analysis leads to a conceptual framework that unifies ecosystem-specific aspects using a common terminology. A quantitative analysis investigates scales, growth rates, and-most importantly-dependency structures of the ecosystems. Results: In all the studied ecosystems, we identify rich dependency languages and variability descriptions that declare many direct and indirect dependencies. Indirect dependencies to abstract capabilities, as opposed to concrete variability units, are used predominantly in fast-growing ecosystems. We also find that variability models-while providing systemwide abstractions over code-work best in centralized variability management and are, thus, absent in ecosystems with large free markets. These latter ecosystems tend to emphasize maintaining capabilities and common vocabularies, dynamic discovery, and binding with strong encapsulation of contributions, together with uniform distribution channels. Conclusion:The use of specialized mechanisms in software ecosystems with large free markets, as opposed to software product lines, calls for recognition of a new discipline-variability encouragement.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability mechanisms in software ecosystems

Berger

Pfeiffer

Tartler

et al. 2014

Information and Software Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Separation is required both when the card is incorrect electronically (sub-feature DF e ) and in case of printing failure (sub-feature DF p ). (Griss et al, 1998;Svahnberg et al, 2002;van Gurp, 2003). A traditional feature tree allows for representing compositions of features, specialization (inheritance) relations on features as well as mutual dependencies between features.…”

Section: A Modular System For Production Of Electronic Cardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it supports neither a proper overview of the requirements for the system under design (Felty and Namijoshi, 2003;Muller, 2004) nor a requirements reference model for configurable systems such as, for example, product lines. A possible alternative proposed in this area is a feature tree model (Griss et al, 1998;Svahnberg et al, 2002;van Gurp, 2003), which allows for a system's functional requirements to be gathered and presented in a compact and visualized form.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Feature Computation Tree Model to Specify Requirements and Reuse

Roubtsova¹,

Roubtsov

2006

Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:A large subset of requirements for complex systems, services and product lines is traditionally specified by hierarchical structures of features. Features are usually gathered and represented in the form of a feature tree. The feature tree is a structural model. It represents mainly composition and specialization relations between features and does not provide the possibility to specify requirements in the form of ordering relations defined on functional features. Use case scenarios are usually employed for specification of the ordering relations. However, use case scenarios comprise isolated sequences of features, and therefore they may be inconsistent and even may contradict each other and the feature tree. Moreover, some use case scenarios defining relations on features may be incomplete. In order to support consistent specification of requirements, we suggest using a pair of related models: a feature tree model and a feature computation tree model. The pair of such related feature tree models provides the basis for the method of consistency checks of requirements. It introduces a united view on the system's behavior at the stage of requirement specification and facilitates specification of forbidden sequences and construction complete sequences from incomplete ones. It allows designers to precisely specify the desired reuse and to find that a certain sort of reuse is not possible. Understanding already at the stage of requirements engineering that a subsystem cannot be reused without modification saves effort and money spent on development. The proposed method and models are explained using a case study of design of a system for electronic cards production.

show abstract

“…The differences among these similar products are captured through variability. Variability is the capability of software artifacts to vary and its smart management and controlling helps in the realization of successful SPL [8]. It is the flexibility of software artifacts to vary and its smart management and controlling help in the realization of successful SPL [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Empirical Study of the Improved SPLD Framework using Expert Opinion Technique

Alam¹,

Khan²,

Zafar³

2017

IJEACS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Due to the growing need for high-performance and low-cost software applications and the increasing competitiveness, the industry is under pressure to deliver products with low development cost, reduced delivery time and improved quality. To address these demands, researchers have proposed several development methodologies and frameworks. One of the latest methodologies is software product line (SPL) which utilizes the concepts like reusability and variability to deliver successful products with shorter time-tomarket, least development and minimum maintenance cost with a high-quality product. This research paper is a validation of our proposed framework, Improved Software Product Line (ISPL), using Expert Opinion Technique. An extensive survey based on a set of questionnaires on various aspects and sub-processes of the ISPLD Framework was carried. Analysis of the empirical data concludes that ISPL shows significant improvements on several aspects of the contemporary SPL frameworks.

show abstract

A taxonomy of variability realization techniques

Cited by 297 publications

References 31 publications

Variability mechanisms in software ecosystems

Variability mechanisms in software ecosystems

A Feature Computation Tree Model to Specify Requirements and Reuse

An Empirical Study of the Improved SPLD Framework using Expert Opinion Technique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About