nach oben

Software Quality Journal

Erschienen in:

01.09.2012

SPL Conqueror: Toward optimization of non-functional properties in software product lines

verfasst von: Norbert Siegmund, Marko Rosenmüller, Martin Kuhlemann, Christian Kästner, Sven Apel, Gunter Saake

Erschienen in: Software Quality Journal | Ausgabe 3-4/2012

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

A software product line (SPL) is a family of related programs of a domain. The programs of an SPL are distinguished in terms of features, which are end-user visible characteristics of programs. Based on a selection of features, stakeholders can derive tailor-made programs that satisfy functional requirements. Besides functional requirements, different application scenarios raise the need for optimizing non-functional properties of a variant. The diversity of application scenarios leads to heterogeneous optimization goals with respect to non-functional properties (e.g., performance vs. footprint vs. energy optimized variants). Hence, an SPL has to satisfy different and sometimes contradicting requirements regarding non-functional properties. Usually, the actually required non-functional properties are not known before product derivation and can vary for each application scenario and customer. Allowing stakeholders to derive optimized variants requires us to measure non-functional properties after the SPL is developed. Unfortunately, the high variability provided by SPLs complicates measurement and optimization of non-functional properties due to a large variant space. With SPL Conqueror, we provide a holistic approach to optimize non-functional properties in SPL engineering. We show how non-functional properties can be qualitatively specified and quantitatively measured in the context of SPLs. Furthermore, we discuss the variant-derivation process in SPL Conqueror that reduces the effort of computing an optimal variant. We demonstrate the applicability of our approach by means of nine case studies of a broad range of application domains (e.g., database management and operating systems). Moreover, we show that SPL Conqueror is implementation and language independent by using SPLs that are implemented with different mechanisms, such as conditional compilation and feature-oriented programming.

Vorheriger Artikel A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

Nächster Artikel Quality-aware analysis in product line engineering with the orthogonal variability model

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

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 "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 "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

Please note, a feature model looks similar to a goal model often used for requirements engineering (van Lamsweerde 2001). However, the concepts cannot be compared. A feature model describes the variability of an entire SPL, i.e., all products.

Available at: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/.

The sum of the footprint of features Base, Replication and Cryptography is 448 KB.

Available at: http://sqlite.org.

In fact, a single measurement takes approximately 5 min. Measuring all 2⁸⁸ variants would take ca. 2.9 × 10²¹ years.

Measurement theory defines which operations are valid for which scale of measurement. For example, we can only use median and percentile operations for an ordinal scale, because we only have a totally ordered set of measures.

Maintainability can be derived from source code metrics to some degree.

We provide the raw material of our measurements and evaluations on our website: http://fosd.de/SPLConqueror.

http://www.campwoodsw.com/sourcemonitor.html.

The SPLs are: LinkedList, ZipMe, PKJab, SensorNetwork and Violet.

Please note, that this is only an example. Such a design decision should be made by domain experts and SPL vendors.

The complete measurement can be found at our website: http://fosd.de/SPLConqueror.

Since feature Compress is a mandatory feature, it is present in every product. Hence, the size of this feature is measured together with the size of the SPL’s core feature Base.

We used the Microsoft C compiler and /O2 optimization level as compiler flag.

Antkiewicz, M., & Czarnecki, K. (2004). Featureplugin: Feature modeling plug-in for Eclipse. In Workshop on eclipse technology eXchange (pp. 67–72). New York: ACM Press.

Apel, S., & Beyer, D. (2011). Feature cohesion in software product lines: An exploratory study. In Proceedings of the International Software Engineering Conference (ICSE) (pp. 421–430). New York: ACM Press.

Bagnall, A. J., Rayward-Smith, V. J., & Whittley, I. M. (2001). The next release problem. Information and Software Technology, 43(14), 883–890.CrossRef

Batory, D. (2005). Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC) (Vol. 3714, pp. 7–20). Berlin: Springer, LNCS.

Batory, D., Sarvela, J. N., & Rauschmayer, A. (2004). Scaling step-wise refinement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE), 30(6), 355–371CrossRef

Benavides, D., Segura, S., Trinidad, P., & Cortés, A. R. (2007). FAMA: Tooling a framework for the automated analysis of feature models. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS) (pp. 129–134). Berlin: Springer.

Benavides, D., Ruiz-Cortés, A., & Trinidad, P. (2005). Automated reasoning on feature models. In International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering (CAISE) (Vol. 3520, pp. 491–503). Berlin: Springer, LNCS.

Bøegh, J., Depanfilis, S., Kitchenham, B., & Pasquini, A. (1999). A method for software quality planning, control, and evaluation. IEEE Software, 16, 69–77.CrossRef

Boehm, B. W., Brown, J. R., Kaspar, H., Lipow, M., Macleod, G. J., & Merritt, M. J. (1978). Characteristics of software wuality (TRW series of software technology). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Botterweck, G., Nestor, D., Preußner, A., Cawley, C., & Thiel, S. (2007). Towards supporting feature configuration by interactive visualization. In Proceedings of Workshop on Visualisation in Software Product Line Engineering (ViSPLE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 125–131.

Chung, L., & do Prado Leite, J. (2009). On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In Conceptual modeling: Foundations and applications (Vol. 5600, Chap 19, pp. 363–379). Berlin: Springer, LNCS.

Chung, L., Nixon, B. A., & Yu, E. (1995). Using non-functional requirements to systematically support change. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 132–139.

Chung, L., Nixon, B. A., Yu, E., & Mylopoulos, J. (1999). Non-functional requirements in software engineering. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef

Clements, P., & Northrop, L. (2002). Software product lines: Practices and patterns. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Cooper, K. D., Subramanian, D., & Torczon, L. (2002). Adaptive optimizing compilers for the 21st century. Journal of Supercomputing, 23(1), 7–22.MATHCrossRef

Czarnecki, K., & Eisenecker, U. (2000). Generative programming: Methods, tools, and applications. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Czarnecki, K., Kim, C. H. P., & Kalleberg, K. T. (2006). Feature models are views on ontologies. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 41–51.

Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., & Eisenecker, U. W. (2004). Staged configuration using feature models. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC) (Vol. 3154, pp. 266–283). Berlin: Springer, LNCS.

Fei, Y., Ravi, S., Raghunathan, A., & Jha, N. K. (2007). Energy-optimizing source code transformations for operating system-driven embedded software. ACM Transaction on Embedded Computer Systems, 7(1), 1–26.CrossRef

Floch, J., Hallsteinsen, S., Stav, E., Eliassen, F., Lund, K., & Gjorven, E. (2006). Using architecture models for runtime adaptability. IEEE Software, 23, 62–70.CrossRef

Glinz, M. (2007). On non-functional requirements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 21–26.

Göbel, S., Pohl, C., Röttger, S., & Zschaler, S. (2004). The COMQUAD component model: Enabling dynamic selection of implementations by weaving non-functional aspects. In International Conference on Aspect-oriented Software Development (AOSD) (pp. 74–82). New York: ACM Press.

Götz, S., & Pukall, M. (2009). On performance of delegation in Java. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Upgrades (HotSWUp) (pp. 1–6). New York: ACM Press.

Hunleth, F., & Cytron, R. (2002). Footprint and feature management using aspect-oriented programming techniques. In Proceedings of Joint Conference on Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems & Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems (LCTES/SCOPES) (pp. 38–45). New York: ACM Press.

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2001). Software engineering—Product quality, Part 1: Quality model. In JTC 1/SC 7—Software and systems engineering, ISO/IEC 9126-1.

Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., & Peterson, A. (1990). Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

Karlsson, J., Wohlin, C., & Regnell, B. (1998). An evaluation of methods for prioritizing software requirements. Information and Software Technology, 39(14–15), 939–947.CrossRef

Kästner, C., Apel, S., ur Rahman, S. S., Rosenmüller, M., Batory, D. & Saake, G. (2009). On the impact of the optional feature problem: Analysis and case studies. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), Software Engineering Institute (SEI), pp. 181–190.

Khoshgoftaar, T. M., & Seliya, N. (2003). Fault prediction modeling for software quality estimation: Comparing commonly used techniques. Empirical Software Engineering, 8, 255–283.CrossRef

Krueger, C. W. (2006). New methods in software product line development. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 95–102.

Li, Y., & Henkel, J. (2002). A framework for estimating and minimizing energy dissipation of embedded HW/SW systems (pp. 259–264). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lincke, R., Gutzmann, T., & Löwe, W. (2010). Software quality prediction models compared. In International Conference on Quality Software (ISCQ), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 82–91.

Lopez-Herrejon, R., & Apel, S. (2007). Measuring and characterizing crosscutting in aspect-based programs: Basic metrics and case studies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE) (pp. 423–437). Berlin: Springer

Marler, R., & Arora, J. (2004). Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 26(6), 369–395.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

McCabe, T. (1976). A complexity measure. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2(4), 308–320.MathSciNetMATHCrossRef

Mccall, J. A., Richards, P. K., & Walters, G. F. (1977). Factors in software quality. Vol. 1. Concepts and definitions of software quality. Technical Report ADA049014, General Electric Co Sunnyvale California.

Oracle (2006). Oracle press release. http://www.oracle.com/corporate/press/2006_sep/oracle_bdb_4-5.htm

Pizzi, N. J., Summers, R., & Pedrycz, W. (2002). Software quality prediction using median-adjusted class labels. In International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 2405–2409.

Pohl, K., Böckle, G., & van der Linden, F. (2005). Software product line engineering: Foundations, principles and techniques. Berlin: Springer.MATH

Pure-systems GmbH (2004). Technical white paper: Variant management with pure::variants. [Avaiblable online at: http://www.pure-systems.com.

Rabiser, R., Dhungana, D., & Grünbacher, P. (2007). Tool support for product derivation in large-scale product lines: A wizard-based approach. In Workshop on Visualisation in Software Product Line Engineering (ViSPLE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 119–124.

Rana, Z. A., Shamail, S., & Awais, M. M. (2007). A survey of measurement-based software quality prediction techniques. Tech. Rep. Lahore University of Management Sciences.

Robertson, S., & Robertson, J. (1999). Mastering the requirements process. New York: ACM Press.

Saliu, M. O., & Ruhe, G. (2007). Bi-objective release planning for evolving software systems. In Proceedings of the European Software Engineering Conference and the ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC-FSE) (pp. 105–114). New York: ACM Press, FSE.

Siegmund, N., Kuhlemann, M., Rosenmüller, M., Kästner, C., & Saake, G. (2008a). Integrated product line model for semi-automated product derivation using non-functional properties. In Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS) (pp. 25–31). University of Duisburg-Essen.

Siegmund, N., Rosenmüller, M., Kuhlemann, M., Kästner, C., & Saake, G. (2008b). Measuring non-functional properties in software product lines for product derivation. In Proceedings of the Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 187–194.

Siegmund, N., Kuhlemann, M., Apel, S., & Pukall, M. (2010a). Optimizing non-functional properties of software product lines by means of refactorings. In Proceedings of Workshop Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VaMoS) (pp. 115–122). University of Duisburg-Essen.

Siegmund, N., Rosenmüller, M., & Apel, S. (2010b). Automating energy optimization with features. In Proceedings of International Workshop on Feature-oriented Software Development (FOSD) (pp. 2–9). New York: ACM Press.

Siegmund, N., Rosenmüller, M., Kästner, C., Giarusso, P. G., Apel, S., & Kolesnikov, S. S. (2011). Scalable prediction of non-functional properties in software product lines. In Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), IEEE Computer Society.

Sincero, J., Schröder-Preikschat, W., & Spinczyk, O. (2010). Approaching non-functional properties of software product lines: Learning from products. In Proceedings of Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 147–155.

Sincero, J., Spinczyk, O., & Schröder-Preikschat, W. (2007). On the configuration of non-functional properties in software product lines. In Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), Doctoral Symposium (pp. 167–173). Kindai Kagaku Sha Co. Ltd.

SQLite.org (2010). Press release. http://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html [Accessed at: 19th May 2011].

Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Sciences, 103(2684), 677–680.MATHCrossRef

Tiwari, V., Malik, S., & Wolfe, A. (1994). Compilation techniques for low energy: An overview. In Proceedings of Symposium on Low Power Electronics (ISLPED), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 38–39.

Trendowicz, A., & Punter, T. (2003). Quality modeling for software product lines. In ECOOP Workshop on Quantitative Approaches in Object-Oriented Software Engineering (QAOOSE).

van Lamsweerde, A. (2001). Goal-oriented requirements engineering: a guided tour. In International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 249–262.

van Lamsweerde, A., Darimont, R., & Letier, E. (1998). Managing conflicts in goal-driven requirements engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 24(11), 908 –926.CrossRef

White, J., Schmidt, D. C., Wuchner, E., & Nechypurenko, A. (2007). Automating product-line variant selection for mobile devices. In Proceedings of the International Software Product Line Conference (SPLC), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 129–140.

White, J., Dougherty, B., & Schmidt, D. C. (2009). Selecting highly optimal architectural feature sets with filtered cartesian flattening. Journal of Systems and Software, 82(8), 1268–1284.CrossRef

Yu, E. S. K. (1997). Towards modeling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE), IEEE Computer Society, pp. 226–235.

Zhang, Y., Harman, M., & Mansouri, S. A. (2007). The multi-objective next release problem. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (GECCO) (pp. 1129–1137). New York: ACM Press.

Zubrow, D., & Chastek, G. (2003). Measures for software product lines. Tech. Rep. CMU/SEI-2003-TN-031, Carnegie Mellon University.

Titel: SPL Conqueror: Toward optimization of non-functional properties in software product lines
verfasst von: Norbert Siegmund
Marko Rosenmüller
Martin Kuhlemann
Christian Kästner
Sven Apel
Gunter Saake
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2012
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Software Quality Journal / Ausgabe 3-4/2012
Print ISSN: 0963-9314
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1367
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-011-9152-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3-4/2012

Composing multiple variability artifacts to assemble coherent workflows

Foreword to the special issue on quality engineering for software product lines

A systematic review of quality attributes and measures for software product lines

Pairwise testing for software product lines: comparison of two approaches

In this issue

Model-based pairwise testing for feature interaction coverage in software product line engineering