Evaluating scenario-based SPL requirements approaches: the case for modularity, stability and expressiveness

Abstract

International audienceSoftware product lines (SPL) provide support for productivity gains through systematic reuse. Among the various quality attributes supporting these goals, modularity, stability and expressiveness of feature specifications, their composition and configuration knowledge emerge as strategic values in modern software development paradigms. This paper presents a metric-based evaluation aiming at assessing how well the chosen qualities are supported by scenario-based SPL requirements approaches. The selected approaches for this study span from type of notation (textual or graphical based), style to support variability (annotation or composition based), and specification expressiveness. They are compared using the metrics developed in a set of releases from an exemplar case study. Our major findings indicate that composition-based approaches have greater potential to support modularity and stability, and that quantification mechanisms simplify and increase expressiveness of configuration knowledge and composition specifications

Templates for textual use cases of software product lines: results from a systematic mapping study and a controlled experiment

“…This template was found in 4 papers from the Step 03 (see Table 3). From these, the newest paper (Alferez et al (2014)) presents a metric-based evaluation aimed at assessing quality attributes such as modularity, stability and expressiveness of SPL requirements approaches like the PLUSS . Gallina and Guelfi (2007) propose a Use Case Elicitation Template (UCET) that provides special fields to collect information concerning variabilities: a) selection category, which specifies whether the use case is mandatory, optional or alternative; b) a description of variation points, and c) fault variation description, used to describe the faults strongly related to the variation points.…”

“…We also looked for work that compares requirements engineering approaches for SPL, and, addressing this issue, we found four studies (Alferez et al 2014;Asadi et al 2012;Blanes and Insfrãn 2012;Kuloor and Eberlein 2002). The difference among these studies is in the applied evaluation criteria and in the type of approach selected.…”

“…This comparison was made based on the SPL requirements modeling, specification, verification and management. Alferez et al (2014) presented a metric-based comparative study of existing scenario-based SPL requirements approaches in order to understand how they address modularity, stability and expressiveness. The main contribution of our work, compared to the previous four studies, is in the assessment of the comprehensibility issues provided by the use case templates and the focus on an artifact (textual use cases) instead of the requirements engineering approach.…”

Configuring use case models in product families

“…The benefits of use case-driven configuration have been acknowledged and there are proposed approaches in the literature [9,61,6]. Many studies [34,27,8] provide configuration approaches which require that feature models be traced as an orthogonal model to artifacts such as UML use case, activity and class diagrams.…”

“…Some approaches specialize in configuring scenario-based requirements using annotationand composition-based techniques [6]. The Product Line Use case modeling for Systems and Software engineering approach (PLUSS) proposed by Eriksson et al [34,32,33] uses feature models to configure requirements in multiple forms including scenario-based requirements models (e.g., use cases and activity diagrams).…”