Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Software and Systems Modeling
Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling 1/2019

30.01.2017 | Theme Section Paper

Using internal domain-specific languages to inherit tool support and modularity for model transformations

verfasst von: Georg Hinkel, Thomas Goldschmidt, Erik Burger, Ralf Reussner

Erschienen in: Software and Systems Modeling | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Model-driven engineering (MDE) has proved to be a useful approach to cope with today’s ever-growing complexity in the development of software systems; nevertheless, it is not widely applied in industry. As suggested by multiple studies, tool support is a major factor for this lack of adoption. In particular, the development of model transformations lacks good tool support. Additionally, modularization techniques are inevitable for the development of larger model transformations to keep them maintainable. Existing tools for MDE, in particular model transformation approaches, are often developed by small teams and cannot keep up with advanced tool support for mainstream general-purpose programming languages, such as IntelliJ or Visual Studio. Internal DSLs are a promising solution to these problems. In this paper, we investigate the impact of design decisions of an internal DSL to the reuse of tool support and modularization concepts from the host language. We validate our findings in terms of understandability, applicability, tool support, and extensibility using three case studies from academia, a model-driven engineering platform, and the industrial automation domain where we apply an implementation of an internal model transformation language on the .NET platform. The results confirm the value of inherited modularity and tool support while conciseness and understandability are still competitive.
Vorheriger Artikel Multi-objective exploration of architectural designs by composition of model transformations
Nächster Artikel Transactional execution of hierarchical reconfigurations in cyber-physical systems

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
The choice of a textual languages such as Java or C\(^\sharp \) as host languages for a model transformation language inevitably leads to a textual model transformation language. Even from the early days on, there has always been a demand for graphical model transformation languages [49]. However, as the success of textual model transformation languages [29, 31], but also the experience with graphical languages [64] imply, textual model transformations may be better suited for certain kinds of problems.
 
6
Many external transformation languages also allow the integration of code written in other languages such as Java and therefore may include parts of an existing programming model.
 
7
We see it as one of the base functionalities of a model transformation language that the trace is built up implicitly. The only question is whether the transformation developer sees the trace or not.
 
8
For example, mappings in QVT operational are divided into init, population, and end sections.
 
9
The usage of the IDE when writing model transformations may differ from the usage in regular programming tasks. Thus, the share of code completion commands could be lower. Nevertheless, we think that code completion in particular is also important for model transformation developers.
 
10
Technologies such as Xtext may help by making it easier to implement code completion for an external DSL.
 
12
Technologies such as the modular compiler Roslyn (https://​roslyn.​codeplex.​com) give internal languages the chance to enrich the host language compiler. In the contrary direction, technologies such as Xbase [8] make it possible to use general-purpose language compilers in external DSLs.
 
13
The concept of transformation rule templates has originally been introduced by Varró [54]. However, since then, it has not been adopted very often.
 
16
The reason to compare the solution with a general-purpose code solution instead of for example an external model transformation solution is that this would have been the most likely alternative in that particular case.
 
19
An overview of certified SDKs from different vendors is available at https://​opcfoundation.​org/​products.
 
22
The approaches described here have been compiled in the related work section of [43] and have been adapted from there.
 
Literatur
1.
Barringer, H., Havelund, K.: TraceContract: A Scala DSL for Trace Analysis. Springer, Berlin (2011)
2.
Belaunde, M.: Transformation composition in qvt. In: Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Composition of Model Transformations (CMT 2006), Bilbao, Spain, pp. 39–46 (2006)
3.
Bruch, M., Monperrus, M., Mezini, M.: Learning from examples to improve code completion systems. In: Proceedings of the 7th Joint Meeting of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on The Foundations of Software Engineering, pp. 213–222. ACM (2009)
4.
Cuadrado, J.S., Guerra, E., De Lara, J.: Generic model transformations: write once, reuse everywhere. In: International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 62–77. Springer, Berlin (2011)
5.
6.
Cuadrado, J.S., Molina, J.G., Tortosa, M.M.: Rubytl: a practical, extensible transformation language. In: Rensink, A., Warmer, J. (eds.) Model Driven Architecture: Foundations and Applications, pp. 158–172. Springer, Berlin (2006)
7.
Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S.: Feature-based survey of model transformation approaches. IBM Syst. J. 45(3), 621–645 (2006)CrossRef
8.
Efftinge, S., Eysholdt, M., Köhnlein, J., Zarnekow, S., von Massow, R., Hasselbring, W., Hanus, M.: Xbase: implementing domain-specific languages for java. SIGPLAN Not. 48(3), 112–121 (2012). doi:10.​1145/​2480361.​2371419
9.
Ehrig, H., Ehrig, K., De Lara, J., Taentzer, G., Varró, D., Varró-Gyapay, S.: Termination criteria for model transformation. In: International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering, pp. 49–63. Springer, Berlin (2005)
10.
Fowler, M.: Domain-Specific Languages. Addison-Wesley Professional, Reading (2010)
11.
Geiß, R., Kroll, M.: Grgen.net: a fast, expressive, and general purpose graph rewrite tool. In: Schürr, A., Nagl, M., Zündorf, A. (eds.) Applications of Graph Transformations with Industrial Relevance, pp. 568–569. Springer, Berlin (2008)
12.
Gelhausen, T., Derre, B., Geiß, R.: Customizing GrGen.net for Model Transformation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Graph and Model Transformations, pp. 17–24. ACM, London (2008)
13.
George, L., Wider, A., Scheidgen, M.: Type-safe model transformation languages as internal dsls in scala. In: Hu, Z., Lara, De.J. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 160–175. Springer, Berlin (2012)
14.
Gorp, P.V., Rose, L.: The petri-nets to statecharts transformation case. In: Sixth Transformation Tool Contest (TTC 2013), EPTCS (2013)
15.
16.
Heidenreich, F., Kopcsek, J., Aßmann, U.: Safe composition of transformations. J. Object Technol. 10, 1–20 (2011)CrossRef
17.
Hein, C., Ritter, T., Wagner, M.: Model-driven tool integration with modelbus. In: Workshop Future Trends of Model-Driven Development (2009)
18.
19.
Hinkel, G.: An approach to maintainable model transformations using internal DSLs. Master thesis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (2013)
20.
Hinkel, G.: Change propagation in an internal model transformation language. In: Kolovos, D., Wimmer, M. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 3–17. Springer, Berlin (2015)
21.
22.
Hinkel, G., Goldschmidt, T., Happe, L.: Tool support for model transformations: on solutions using internal languages. In: Modellierung 2016, Karlsruhe, Germany, 2–4 March 2016 (2016)
23.
Hinkel, G., Groenda, H., Vannucci, L., Denninger, O., Cauli, N., Ulbrich, S.: A domain-specific language (DSL) for integrating neuronal networks in robot control. In: 2015 Joint MORSE/VAO Workshop on Model-Driven Robot Software Engineering and View-based Software-Engineering (2015)
24.
Hinkel, G., Happe, L.: Using component frameworks for model transformations by an internal DSL. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Model-Driven Engineering for Component-Based Software Systems Co-Located with ACM/IEEE 17th International Conference on Model Driven Engineering Languages & Systems (MoDELS 2014), CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 1281, pp. 6–15. CEUR-WS.org (2014)
25.
Horn, T.: Model querying with funnyqt. In: Duddy, K., Kappel, G. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 56–57. Springer, Berlin (2013)
26.
Horn, T.: The TTC 2013 flowgraphs case. In: Sixth Transformation Tool Contest (TTC 2013), EPTCS (2013)
27.
Horv, A., et al.: Dynamic backward slicing of model transformations. In: 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation, pp. 1–10. IEEE (2012)
28.
Hülsbusch, M., König, B., Rensink, A., Semenyak, M., Soltenborn, C., Wehrheim, H.: Showing full semantics preservation in model transformation-a comparison of techniques. In: International Conference on Integrated Formal Methods, pp. 183–198. Springer, Berlin (2010)
29.
Jouault, F., Kurtev, I.: Transforming models with atl. In: Satellite Events at the MoDELS 2005 Conference, pp. 128–138. Springer, Berlin (2006)
30.
Jung, R., Heinrich, R., Hasselbring, W.: GECO: a generator composition approach for aspect-oriented DSLs. In: Van Gorp, P., Engels, G. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations: 9th International Conference, ICMT 2016, Held as Part of STAF 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9765, pp. 141–156. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-319-42064-6_​10
31.
Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Polack, F.A.: The epsilon transformation language. In: Vallecillo, A., Gray J., Pierantonio, A. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 46–60. Springer, Berlin (2008)
32.
Křikava, F., Collet, P., France, R.B.: Sigma: Scala internal domain-specific languages for model manipulations. In: Dingel, J., Schulte, W., Ramos, I., Abrahão, S., Insfran, E. (eds.) Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 569–585. Springer, Berlin (2014)
33.
Kusel, A., Schönböck, J., Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Retschitzegger, W., Schwinger, W.: Reuse in model-to-model transformation languages: are we there yet? Softw. Syst. Model. 14, 1–36 (2013)
34.
de Lara, J., Guerra, E.: From types to type requirements: genericity for model-driven engineering. Softw. Syst. Model. 12(3), 453–474 (2013)CrossRef
35.
Mahnke, W., Leitner, S.H., Damm, M.: OPC Unified Architecture. Springer, Berlin (2009)CrossRef
36.
Meyerovich, L.A., Rabkin, A.S.: Empirical analysis of programming language adoption. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, pp. 1–18. ACM (2013)
37.
Mohagheghi, P., Fernandez, M.A., Martell, J.A., Fritzsche, M., Gilani, W.: MDE adoption in industry: challenges and success criteria. In: Chaudron, M.R.V. (ed.) Models in Software Engineering, pp. 54–59. Springer, Berlin (2009)
38.
Mohagheghi, P., Gilani, W., Stefanescu, A., Fernandez, M.A.: An empirical study of the state of the practice and acceptance of model-driven engineering in four industrial cases. Empir. Softw. Eng. 18(1), 89–116 (2013)CrossRef
39.
Murphy, G.C., Kersten, M., Findlater, L.: How are Java software developers using the Elipse IDE? IEEE Softw. 23(4), 76–83 (2006)CrossRef
40.
Nickel, U., Niere, J., Zündorf, A.: The fujaba environment. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 742–745. ACM, London (2000)
41.
42.
Olsen, G.K., Aagedal, J., Oldevik, J.: Aspects of reusable model transformations. In: Proceedings of the First European Workshop on Composition of Model Transformations (CMT 2006), Bilbao, Spain, pp. 21–26 (2006)
43.
44.
Rentschler, A., Noorshams, Q., Happe, L., Reussner, R.: Interactive visual analytics for efficient maintenance of model transformations. In: Duddy, K., Kappel, G. (eds) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 141–157. Springer, Berlin (2013)
45.
Rentschler, A., Werle, D., Noorshams, Q., Happe, L., Reussner, R.: Designing information hiding modularity for model transformation languages. In: Proceedings of the of the 13th International Conference on Modularity, pp. 217–228. ACM, London (2014)
46.
Rivera, J.E., Ruiz-González, D., López-Romero, F., Bautista, J.M.: Wires*: a tool for orchestrating model transformations. In: A. Vallecillo, G. Sagardui (eds.) XIV Jornadas de Ingeniería del Software y Bases de Datos (JISBD 2009), San Sebastián, Spain, September 8–11, 2009, pp. 158–161 (2009)
47.
Robbes, R., Lanza, M.: How program history can improve code completion. In: 23rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2008. ASE 2008, pp. 317–326. IEEE (2008)
48.
Schürr, A.: Specification of graph translators with triple graph grammars. In: Mayr, E.W., Schmidt, G., Tinhofer, G. (eds.) Graph-Theoretic Concepts in Computer Science, pp. 151–163. Springer, Berlin (1994)
49.
Sendall, S., Kozaczynski, W.: Model transformation: the heart and soul of model-driven software development. IEEE Softw. 20(5), 42–45 (2003)CrossRef
50.
Staron, M.: Adopting model driven software development in industry—a case study at two companies. In: Nierstrasz, O., Whittle, J., Harel, D., Reggio, G. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 57–72. Springer, Berlin (2006)
51.
Stevens, P.: A landscape of bidirectional model transformations. In: Lämmel, R., Visser, J., Saraiva, J.A. (eds.) Generative and Transformational Techniques in Software Engineering II, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5235, pp. 408–424. Springer, Berlin (2008). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-540-88643-3_​10
52.
Ujhelyi, Z., Bergmann, G., Hegedüs, Á., Horváth, Á., Izsó, B., Ráth, I., Szatmári, Z., Varró, D.: EMF-IncQuery: an integrated development environment for live model queries. Sci. Comput. Program. 98, 80–99 (2015)CrossRef
53.
54.
Varró, D., Pataricza, A.: Generic and meta-transformations for model transformation engineering. «UML» 2004–The Unified Modeling Language. Modeling Languages and Applications, pp. 290–304. Springer, Berlin (2004)
55.
Wagelaar, D., Iovino, L., Di Ruscio, D., Pierantonio, A.: Translational semantics of a co-evolution specific language with the emf transformation virtual machine. In: International Conference on Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 192–207. Springer, Berlin (2012)
56.
Wagelaar, D., Tisi, M., Cabot, J., Jouault, F.: Towards a general composition semantics for rule-based model transformation. In: Whittle, J., Clark, T., Kühne, T. (eds.) Model Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, pp. 623–637. Springer, Berlin (2011)
57.
Wagelaar, D., Van Der Straeten, R., Deridder, D.: Module superimposition: a composition technique for rule-based model transformation languages. Softw. Syst. Model. 9(3), 285–309 (2010)CrossRef
58.
Whittle, J., Hutchinson, J., Rouncefield, M., Burden, H., Heldal, R.: Industrial adoption of model-driven engineering: are the tools really the problem? In: Moreira, A., Schätz, B., Gray, J., Vallecillo, A., Clarke, P. (eds.) Model-Driven Engineering Languages and Systems, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 8107, pp. 1–17. Springer, Berlin (2013). doi:10.​1007/​978-3-642-41533-3_​1
59.
Trancón y Widemann, B., Lepper, M.: Paisley: pattern matching à la carte. In: Hu, Z., Lara, De.J. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 240–247. Springer, Berlin (2012)
60.
Wider, A.: Implementing a bidirectional model transformation language as an internal dsl in scala. In: EDBT/ICDT Workshops, pp. 63–70 (2014)
61.
Wijs, A., Engelen, L.: Efficient property preservation checking of model refinements. In: International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, pp. 565–579. Springer, Berlin (2013)
62.
Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W.: Fact or fiction–reuse in rule-based model-to-model transformation languages. In: Hu, Z., Lara, De.J. (eds.) Theory and Practice of Model Transformations, pp. 280–295. Springer, Berlin (2012)
63.
Wimmer, M., Kappel, G., Kusel, A., Retschitzegger, W., Schönböck, J., Schwinger, W., Kolovos, D.S., Paige, R.F., Lauder, M., Schürr, A., et al.: Surveying rule inheritance in model-to-model transformation languages. J. Object Technol. 11(2), 3–1 (2012)
64.
Zündorf, A., George, T., Lindel, S., Norbisrath, U.: Story driven modeling libary (sdmlib): an inline dsl for modeling and model transformations, the petrinet-statechart case. Sixth Transformation Tool Contest (TTC 2013), ser. EPTCS (2013)
Metadaten
Titel
Using internal domain-specific languages to inherit tool support and modularity for model transformations
verfasst von
Georg Hinkel
Thomas Goldschmidt
Erik Burger
Ralf Reussner
Publikationsdatum
30.01.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
Software and Systems Modeling / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1619-1366
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-1374
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10270-017-0578-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Software and Systems Modeling 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Regular Paper

SQL-PL4OCL: an automatic code generator from OCL to SQL procedural language

Theme Section Paper

Supporting timing analysis of vehicular embedded systems through the refinement of timing constraints

Regular Paper

Lessons learned from developing mbeddr: a case study in language engineering with MPS

Special Section Paper

Type inference in flexible model-driven engineering using classification algorithms

Special Section Paper

Incremental execution of model-to-text transformations using property access traces

Theme Section Paper

A framework to specify system requirements using natural interpretation of UML/MARTE diagrams

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise