Generating Domain-Specific Visual Language Editors from High-level Tool Specifications

Grundy, John; Hosking, John; Zhu, Nianping; Liu, Na

doi:10.1109/ase.2006.39

Cited by 29 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this paper, we choose the everchanging and externally editable system state as the target for visualization, and show that the runtime models can be used as a bridge between such data and the visualized view. The work is related to the existing approaches to use modeling and meta-modeling technologies for the development of GUIs [5] and the visual language editors [3]. Instead of directly generate the whole GUI or editor code from the high-level specifications, we use runtime models as an explicit intermediate representation, separating the concerns between the system data and the graphical strategies.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid GUI development on legacy systems

Song

Gallagher

Clarke

2012

Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Models@run.time

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Graphical User Interface (GUI) is a common feature for modern software systems, while there are still many legacy systems that do not have GUIs, but only provide text and commands for user interaction. In this paper, we report our experiment on using runtime models to support the rapid, generation-based development of simple GUIs for such legacy systems. We construct runtime models for the target system as an intermediate representations of the underlying system state, and in this way wrap the low-level interaction mechanisms of the legacy systems. After that, we visualize the models with a graphical editor. Due to the causal connection between runtime models and the runtime system state, users can monitor and control the system state by reading and writing the models, and in this way, using the graphical model editor as the GUI of the system. Based on the existing framework for runtime model construction and model visualization, it is possible to achieve the rapid development process of such GUIs in the form of high-level specification and automated generation. We experiment with this idea by using two existing frameworks, Sm@rt and GMF, to develop a series of GUIs for an electricity simulation system named GridLAB-D. We also enhance the existing Sm@rt framework with cache mechanisms in order to suit GUIs.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid GUI development on legacy systems

Song

Gallagher

Clarke

2012

Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Models@run.time

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Category 1. Discusses non-functional properties in relation to tool integration (53%) (Arnold, 1994), (Tilley, 1994), (Daberitz and Kelter, 1995), (Wong, 1999), , , (Grundy et al, 2006), (Bull, 2008), (de Alwis and Murphy, 2008), (Kurniawan and Abramson, 2008), (Ertürkmen, 2010), , (Kurniawan and Abramson, 2011), , (Biehl et al, 2012b), (Qureshi, 2012) Category 8. Evaluates standards, reference models or specications related to tool integration (8%) , (Brown, 1993a), , (Zelkowitz, 1993), (Cuthill, 1994), (Barrett et al, 1996), (Wallace and Wallnau, 1996), (Shi, 2007), (Skoglund, 2012) Category 9.…”

Section: The Validity Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The discourse on tool integration beyond technology, a literature survey

Asplund

Törngren

2015

Journal of Systems and Software

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tool integration research area emerged in the 1980s. This survey focuses on those strands of tool integration research that discuss issues beyond technology.We reveal a discourse centered around six frequently mentioned non-functional properties. These properties have been discussed in relation to technology and high level issues. However, while technical details have been covered, high level issues and, by extension, the contexts in which tool integration can be found, are treated indierently. We conclude that this indierence needs to be challenged, and research on a larger set of stakeholders and contexts initiated.An inventory of the use of classication schemes underlines the diculty of evolving the classical classication scheme published by Wasserman. Two frequently mentioned redenitions are highlighted to facilitate their wider use.A closer look at the limited number of research methods and the poor attention to research design indicates a need for a changed set of research methods.We propose more critical case studies and method diversication through theory triangulation.Additionally, among disparate discourses we highlight several focusing on standardization which are likely to contain relevant ndings. This suggests that open communities employed in the context of (pre-)standardization could be especially important in furthering the targeted discourse.

show abstract

“…Initially a tool developer specifies a diagrambased design tool using a set of visual meta-tools [14]. Figure 3 shows part of the meta-tool definition for the MaramaMTE architecture design tool.…”

Section: Example Usagementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We developed MaramaSketch on top of our Marama Eclipse-based diagramming toolset [14]. Marama leverages Eclipse's EMF and GEF frameworks to provide a wide range of diagram editing tools.…”

Section: Design and Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%