Skip to main content

Quality aware software product line engineering

Abstract

Meeting and managing quality requirements such as performance, security… in a reuse context (software product line…) has a problematic that it is not found in single-systems. In this paper, an overview of aspects to consider is presented, including a review of existing approaches, as well as some conclusions, requirements and guidelines to address quality aspects in software product lines.

References

  1. P. America, D. K. Hammer, M. T. Ionita, J. H. Obbink, and E. Rommes. Scenario-based decision making for architectural variability in product families.Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 10(2):171–187, 2005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. M. Auerswald, M. Herrmann, S. Kowalewski, and V. Schulte-Coerne. Reliability-oriented product line engineering of embedded systems. InPFE ’01: Revised Papers from the 4th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering, pages 83–100, London, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag.

  3. M. A. Babar and I. Gorton. Comparison of scenario-based software architecture evaluation methods. InAPSEC ’04: Proceedings of the 11th Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference (APSEC’04), pages 600–607, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.

  4. L. Bass, P. Clements, and R. Kazman.Software architecture in practice. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, USA, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  5. J. Bayer, O. Flege, and C. Gacek. Creating product line architectures. In F. van der Linden, editor,Software Architectures for Product Families, International Workshop IW-SAPF-3, volume 1951 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 210–216. Springer, 2000.

  6. D. Benavides, S. Segura, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. A first step towards a framework for the automated analysis of feature models. InSPLC, Software Product Line Conference, 2006.

  7. D. Benavides, P. Trinidad, and A. Ruiz-Cortés. Automated reasoning on feature models. In O. Pastor and J. F. e Cunha, editors,Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 17th International Conference, CAiSE, Proceedings, volume 3520 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 491–503. Springer, 2005.

  8. A. Bertolino and S. Gnesi. Pluto: A test methodology for product families. In van der Linden PFE2003, pages 181–197.

  9. J. Bosch.Design and use of software architectures: adopting and evolving a product-line approach. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. L. Chung, D. Gross, and E. S. K. Yu. Architectural design to meet stakeholder requirements. InWICSA1: Proceedings of the TC2 First Working IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA1), pages 545-564, Deventer, The Netherlands, The Netherlands, 1999. Kluwer, B.V.

  11. L. Chung, B. A. Nixon, E. Yu, and J. Mylopoulos.Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering (The Kluwer International Series in Software Engineering Volume 5). Springer, October 1999.

  12. P. Clements, R. Kazman, and M. Klein.Evaluating Software Architectures: Methods and Case Studies. Addison-Wesley Professional, January 2002.

  13. P. Clements, L. Northrop, and L. M. Northrop.Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley Professional, August 2001.

  14. E. S. de Almeida, A. Alvaro, D. Lucrédio, V. C. Garcia, and S. R. de Lemos Meira. A survey on software reuse processes. In D. Zhang, T. M. Khoshgoftaar, and M.-L. Shyu, editors,IRI, pages 66–71. IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society, 2005.

  15. S. Deelstra, M. Sinnema, J. Nijhuis, and J. Bosch. Cosvam: A technique for assessing software variability in software product families. InICSM ’04: Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, pages 458–462, Washington, DC, USA, 2004. IEEE Computer Society.

  16. L. Dobrica and E. Niemela;. A survey on software architecture analysis methods.IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 28(7):638–653, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. T. J. Dolan.Architecture Assessment of Information-System Families: a practical perspective. PhD thesis, Tech. Univ. Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  18. L. Etxeberria and G. Sagardui. Product-line architecture: New issues for evaluation. In J. H. Obbink and K. Pohl, editors,9th International Conference on Software Product Lines, SPLC, Proceedings, volume 3714 ofLectures Notes in Computer Science, pages 174–185. Springer, 2005.

  19. L. Etxeberria, G. Sagardui, and L. Belategi. Modelling variation in quality attributes. In K. Pohl, P. Heymans, K.-C. Kang, and A. Metzger, editors,First International Workshop on Variability of Software-Intensive Systems (VaMos 2007), volume Lero Technical report 2007-1. Lero, 2007.

  20. S. Ferber, P. Heidl, and P. Lutz. Reviewing product line architectures: Experience report of atam in an automotive context. InPFE ’01: Revised Papers from the 4th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering, pages 364–382, London, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag.

  21. B. P. Gallagher. Using the architecture tradeoff analysis method to evaluate a reference architecture: A case study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2000-TN-007, SEI, 2000.

  22. G. C. Gannod and R. R. Lutz. An approach to architectural analysis of product lines. InICSE ’00: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, pages 548–557, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press.

  23. B. González-Baixauli, J. C. S. do Prado Leite, and J. Mylopoulos. Visual variability analysis for goal models. In12th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering (RE), pages 198–207. IEEE Computer Society, 2004.

  24. B. Graaf, H. van Dijk, and A. van Deursen. Evaluating an embedded software reference architecture “industrial experience report”. InCSMR ’05: Proceedings of the Ninth European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pages 354–363, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.

  25. IEEE. Ieee standard 1061–1992. ieee standard for a software quality metrics methodology, 1993.

  26. A. Immonen.Software Product Lines, Research Issues in Engineering and Management, chapter A Method for Predicting Reliability and Availability at the Architecture Level, pages 373–422. Springer, 2006.

  27. A. Immonen and E. Niemelä. Survey of reliability and availability prediction methods from the viewpoint of software architecture.Softw Syst Model (2008), 7:49–65, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. M. T. Ionita, D. K. Hammer, and H. Obbink. Scenario-based software architecture evaluation. InMethods: An Overview, Workshop on Methods and Techniques for Software Architecture Review and Assessment at the International Conference on Software Engineering, Orlando, Florida, USA, May 2002.

  29. S. Jarzabek, B. Yang, and S. Yoeun. Addressing quality attributes in domain analysis for product lines.IEE Proceedings — Software, 153(2):61–73, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. R. Kauppinen and J. Taina. Rita environment for testing framework-based software product lines. In P. Kilpeläinen and N. Päivinen, editors,Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on Programming Languages and Software Tools (SPLST), pages 58–69. University of Kuopio, Department of Computer Science, 2003.

  31. R. Kolb, J. D. McGregor, and D. Muthig, editors.First International Workshop on Quality Assurance in Reuse Contexts (QUARC), IESEReport No. 096.04/E. Fraunhofer IESE, August 2004.

  32. R. Kolb, J. D. McGregor, and D. Muthig. Introduction to quality assurance in reuse contexts. InFirst International Workshop on Quality Assurance in Reuse Contexts (QUARC), 2004.

  33. R. Kolb and D. Muthig, editors.First eWorkshop on Quality Assurance for Software Product Lines: Strategic Issues, IESE-Report No. 013.05/E. Fraunhofer IESE, January 2005.

  34. M. Korhonen and T. Mikkonen. Assessing systems adaptability to a product family.J. Syst. Archit., 50(7):383–392, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. J. Kuusela and J. Savolainen. Requirements engineering for product families. InICSE ’00: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering, pages 61–69, New York, NY, USA, 2000. ACM Press.

  36. A. Maccari. Experiences in assessing product family software architecture for evolution. InICSE ’02: Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Software Engineering, pages 585–592, New York, NY, USA, 2002. ACM Press.

  37. M. Matinlassi. Comparison of software product line architecture design methods: Copa, fast, form, kobra and qada. In26th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 127–136. IEEE Computer Society, 2004.

  38. M. Matinlassi, E. Niemelä, and L. Dobrica. Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method: A revolutionary initiation approach to a product line architecture. Technical Report VTT-PUBS-456, VTT Electronics, jan 2002.

  39. J. D. McGregor. Testing a software product line. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2001-TR-022, SEI, dec 2001.

  40. V. Myllärniemi, T. Männistö, and M. Raatikainen. Quality attribute variability within a software product family architecture. InSecond International conference on Quality of Software Architecture QoSA, 2006.

  41. C. Nebut, Y. L. Traon, and J.-M. Jézéquel.Software Product Lines, Research Issues in Engineering and Management, chapter System Testing of Product Lines: From Requirements to Test Cases, pages 447–477. Springer, 2006.

  42. E. Niemelä. Architecture centric software family engineering, product family engineering seminar. Tutorial in 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), 2005.

  43. E. Niemelä. Quality driven family architecture development. Tutorial in SPLC (Software Product Line Conference), 2005.

  44. E. Niemelä and M. Matinlassi. Quality evaluation by qada. Tutorial in 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA), 2005.

  45. F. G. Olumofin and V. B. Misic. Extending the atam architecture evaluation to product line architectures. InWICSA ’05: Proceedings of the 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA’05), pages 45–56, Washington, DC, USA, 2005. IEEE Computer Society.

  46. K. Pohl and A. Metzger. Software product line testing.Commun. ACM, 49(12):78–81, 2006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. A. Rahman. Metrics for the structural assessment of product line architecture. Master’s thesis, School of Engineering, Blekinge Institute of Technology, 2004.

  48. S. Reis, A. Metzger, and klaus Pohl. A reuse technique for performance testing of software product lines. In P. Knauber, C. Krueger, and T. Trew, editors,SPLIT 2006 — Third International Workshop on Software Product Line Testing, volume Computer Science Reports. Mannheim University of Applied Sciences-Computer Science Department, 2006.

  49. C. Riva and C. D. Rosso. Experiences with software product family evolution. InIWPSE ’03: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, page 161, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer Society.

  50. M. Sinnema, S. Deelstra, J. Nijhuis, and J. Bosch. Covamof: A framework for modeling variability in software product families. In R. L. Nord, editor,3rd International Conference on Software Product Lines, SPLC, Proceedings, volume 3154 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 197–213. Springer, sep 2004.

  51. C. Stoermer, F. Bachmann, and C. Verhoef. Sacam: The software architecture comparison analysis method. Technical Report CMU/SEI-2003-TR-006, SEI, 2003.

  52. M. Svahnberg, C. Wohlin, L. Lundberg, and M. Mattsson. A quality-driven decision-support method for identifying software architecture candidates.International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 13(5):547–573, 2003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. A. Tevanlinna, J. Taina, and R. Kauppinen. Product family testing: a survey.SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 29(2):12–12, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. S. Thiel. On the definition of a framework for an architecting process supporting product family development. InPFE ’01: Revised Papers from the 4th International Workshop on Software Product-Family Engineering, pages 125–142, London, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag.

  55. S. Thiel and A. Hein. Systematic integration of variability into product line architecture design. InSPLC 2: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Software Product Lines, pages 130–153, London, UK, 2002. Springer-Verlag.

  56. A. van der Hoek, E. Dincel, and N. Medvidovic. Using service utilization metrics to assess the structure of product line architectures. InMETRICS ’03: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Software Metrics, page 298, Washington, DC, USA, 2003. IEEE Computer Society.

  57. F. van der Linden, editor.Software Product-Family Engineering, 5th International Workshop, PFE 2003, Siena, Italy, November 4–6, 2003, Revised Papers, volume 3014 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2004.

  58. J. G. Wijnstra. Evolving a product family in a changing context. In van der Linden PFE2003, pages 111–128.

  59. H. Zhang, S. Jarzabek, and B. Yang. Quality prediction and assessment for product lines. In J. Eder and M. Missikoff, editors,15th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, CAiSE, Proceedings, volume 2681 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 681–695. Springer, 2003.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Etxeberria, L., Sagardui, G. & Belategi, L. Quality aware software product line engineering. J Braz Comp Soc 14, 57–69 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192552

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03192552

Keywords

  • Software product lines
  • quality assurance