Arnaud Hubaux
Yingfei Xiong
ABSTRACT
Operating systems expose sophisticated configurability to handle variability in hardware platforms like mobile devices, desktops, and servers. The variability model of an operating system kernel like Linux contains thousands of options guarded by hundreds of complex constraints. To guide users throughout the configuration and ensure the validity of their decisions, specialized tools known as configurators have been developed. Despite these tools, configuration still remains a difficult and challenging process. To better understand the challenges faced by users during configuration, we conducted two surveys, one among Linux users and another among eCos users. This paper presents the results of the surveys along three dimensions: configuration practice; user guidance; and language expressiveness. We hope that these results will help researchers and tool builders focus their efforts to improve tool support for software configuration.
- M. Antkiewicz and K. Czarnecki. FeaturePlugin: feature modeling plug-in for Eclipse. In Proceedings of the 2004 OOPSLA workshop on eclipse technology eXchange (eclipse '04), pages 67--72, 2004. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- K. Bak and K. Ali. Improving usability of the Linux kernel configuration tools. http://gsd.uwaterloo.ca/sites/default/files/cs889-report.pdf.Google Scholar
- D. Benavides, S. Segura, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. FAMA: Tooling a framework for the automated analysis of feature models. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS'07), pages 129--134, Limerick, Ireland, January 2007. Lero Technical Report 2007-01.Google Scholar
- T. Berger, S. She, R. Lotufo, A. Wąsowski, and K. Czarnecki. Variability modeling in the real: a perspective from the operating systems domain. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE'10), pages 73--82, Antwerp, Belgium, 2010. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Beuche. Modeling and building software product lines with pure::variants. In Proceedings of the 2008 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC '08), page 358, Washington, DC, USA, 2008. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarDigital Library
- BigLever Software (Inc.). Product line engineering solutions for systems and software. http://www.biglever.com/extras/BigLever_Solution_Brochure.pdf, November 2011.Google Scholar
- L. Chen and M. Ali Babar. A systematic review of evaluation of variability management approaches in software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 53(4):344--362, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Czarnecki, S. Helsen, and U. W. Eisenecker. Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 10(1):7--29, 2005.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Dhungana, P. Grünbacher, and R. Rabiser. DecisionKing: A flexible and extensible tool for integrated variability modeling. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS'07), pages 119--127, Limerick, Ireland, January 2007. Lero Technical Report 2007-01.Google Scholar
- A. Hubaux, A. Classen, M. Mendonça, and P. Heymans. A preliminary review on the application of feature diagrams in practice. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS'10), pages 53--59, Linz, Austria, January 2010. Universität Duisburg-Essen.Google Scholar
- A. Hubaux, Y. Xiong, and K. Czarnecki. Configuration challenges in Linux and eCos: A survey. Technical Report GSDLAB-TR 2011-09-29, Generative Software Development Laboratory, University of Waterloo, 2011.Google Scholar
- M. Janota. Do SAT solvers make good configurators? In Workshop on Analyses of Software Product Lines (ASPL 2008), pages 191--195, Limerick, Ireland, September 2008.Google Scholar
- M. Janota. SAT Solving in Interactive Configuration. PhD thesis, University College Dublin, 2010.Google Scholar
- K. Kang, S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, and A. S. Peterson. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Kästner, T. Thüm, G. Saake, J. Feigenspan, T. Leich, F. Wielgorz, and S. Apel. FeatureIDE: A tool framework for feature-oriented software development. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'09, pages 611--614, Vancouver, Canada, 2009. IEEE. Google ScholarDigital Library
- O. Koren. A study of the Linux kernel evolution. ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review, 40:110--112, 2006. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Mendonca, M. Branco, and D. Cowan. S. P. L. O. T.: software product lines online tools. In Proceeding of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN conference companion on Object oriented programming systems languages and applications (OOPSLA'09), pages 761--762, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Mendonca, A. Wąsowski, and K. Czarnecki. SAT-based analysis of feature models is easy. In Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'09), pages 231--240, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009. Carnegie Mellon University. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. Mendonça. Efficient Reasoning Techniques for Large Scale Feature Models. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, 2009.Google Scholar
- R. Michel, A. Classen, A. Hubaux, and Q. Boucher. A formal semantics for feature cardinalities in feature diagrams. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS'11), pages 82--89, Namur, Belgium, 2011. ACM Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Nöhrer and A. Egyed. Conflict resolution strategies during product configuration. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS'10), pages 107--114, Linz, Austria, 2010. Universität Duisburg-Essen.Google Scholar
- R. Rabiser, P. Grünbacher, and D. Dhungana. Requirements for product derivation support: Results from a systematic literature review and an expert survey. Information and Software Technology, 52(3):324--346, 2010. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Schmid, R. Rabiser, and P. Grünbacher. A comparison of decision modeling approaches in product lines. In Fifth International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMoS'11), ACM International Conference Proceedings Series, pages 119--126. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. Sincero and W. Schröder-Preikschat. The Linux kernel configurator as a feature modeling tool. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Analyses of Software Product Lines (ASPL'08), pages 257--260, Limerick, Ireland, 2008.Google Scholar
- J. White, D. C. Schmidt, D. Benavides, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. Automated diagnosis of product-line configuration errors in feature models. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC'08), pages 225--234, Limercick, Ireland, 2008. IEEE Computer Society. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Y. Xiong, A. Hubaux, S. She, and K. Czarnecki. Generating range fixes for software configuration. Technical Report GSDLAB-TR 2011-10-27, Generative Software Development Laboratory, University of Waterloo, 2011.Google Scholar
- Z. Yin, X. Ma, J. Zheng, Y. Zhou, L. Bairavasundaram, and S. Pasupathy. An empirical study on configuration errors in commercial and open source systems. In Proceedings of 23rd ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), pages 159--172. ACM, 2011. Google ScholarDigital Library
Comments