Klaus Schmid

Bio: Klaus Schmid is an academic researcher from University of Hildesheim. The author has contributed to research in topics: Software product line & Software development. The author has an hindex of 30, co-authored 206 publications receiving 4968 citations. Previous affiliations of Klaus Schmid include Fraunhofer Society & University of Navarra.

Software Product Lines in Action: The Best Industrial Practice in Product Line Engineering

Abstract: Software product lines represent perhaps the most exciting paradigm shift in software development since the advent of high-level programming languages. Nowhere else in software engineering have we seen such breathtaking improvements in cost, quality, time to market, and developer productivity, often registering in the order-of-magnitude range. Here, the authors combine academic research results with real-world industrial experiences, thus presenting a broad view on product line engineering so that both managers and technical specialists will benefit from exposure to this work. They capture the wealth of knowledge that eight companies have gathered during the introduction of the software product line engineering approach in their daily practice.

PuLSE: a methodology to develop software product lines

Abstract: Software product lines have recently been introduced as one of the most promising advances for efficient software development. Yet upon close examination, there are few guidelines or methodologies available to develop and deploy product lines beyond existing domain engineering approaches. The latter have had mixed success within commercial enterprises because of their deployment complexity, lack of customizability, and especially their misplaced focus, that is on domains as opposed to products. To tackle these problems we developed the PuLSETM (Product Line Software Engineering) methodology for the purpose of enabling the conception and deployment of software product lines within a large variety of enterprise contexts. This is achieved via product-centric focus throughout the phases of PuLSETM, customizability of its components, incremental introduction capability, maturity scale for structured evolution, and adaptations to a few main product development situations. PuLSETM is the result of a bottom-up effort: the methodology captures and leverages the results (the lessons learned) from our technology transfer activities with our industrial customers. We present in this paper the main ideas behind PuLSETM and illustrate the methodology with a running example taken from our transfer experience.

Dynamic Software Product Lines

Abstract: The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) defines an SPL as a set of software-intensive systems that share a common, managed set of features satisfying the specific needs of a particular market segment or mission. A fundamental principle of SPLs is variability management, which involves separating the product line into three parts - common components, parts common to some but not all products, and individual products with their own specific requirements - and managing these throughout development. Using SPLs seeks to maximize reusable variation and eliminate wasteful generic development of components used only once. Although traditional SPL engineering recognizes that variation points are bound at different stages of development, and possibly also at runtime, it typically binds variation points before delivery of the software. In contrast, DSPL engineers typically aren't concerned with pre-runtime variation points. However, they recognize that in practice mixed approaches might be viable, where some variation points related to the environment's static properties are bound before runtime and others related to the dynamic properties are bound at runtime.

Cool features and tough decisions: a comparison of variability modeling approaches

Abstract: Variability modeling is essential for defining and managing the commonalities and variabilities in software product lines. Numerous variability modeling approaches exist today to support domain and application engineering activities. Most are based on feature modeling (FM) or decision modeling (DM), but so far no systematic comparison exists between these two classes of approaches. Over the last two decades many new features have been added to both FM and DM and it is tough to decide which approach to use for what purpose. This paper clarifies the relation between FM and DM. We aim to systematize the research field of variability modeling and to explore potential synergies. We compare multiple aspects of FM and DM ranging from historical origins and rationale, through syntactic and semantic richness, to tool support, identifying commonalities and differences. We hope that this effort will improve the understanding of the range of approaches to variability modeling by discussing the possible variations. This will provide insights to users considering adopting variability modeling in practice and to designers of new languages, such as the new OMG Common Variability Language.

Calculating ROI for software product lines

Abstract: Product line engineering has become an important and widely used approach for efficiently developing portfolios of software products. The idea is to develop a set of products as a single, coherent development task from a core asset base (sometimes called a platform), a collection of artifacts specifically designed for use across a portfolio. This approach produces order-of-magnitude economic improvements compared to one-at-a-time software system development. Because the product line approach isn't limited to specific technical properties of the planned software but rather focuses on economic characteristics, high return on investment has become the anthem of the approach's protagonists. Our software product line cost model can calculate the costs and benefits (and hence the ROI) that we can expect to accrue from various product line development situations. It's also straightforward and intuitive.

Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems. Proc. TACAS 2009

Abstract: ing WS1S Systems to Verify Parameterized Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Kai Baukus, Saddek Bensalem, Yassine Lakhnech and Karsten Stahl FMona: A Tool for Expressing Validation Techniques over Infinite State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 J.-P. Bodeveix and M. Filali Transitive Closures of Regular Relations for Verifying Infinite-State Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Bengt Jonsson and Marcus Nilsson Diagnostic and Test Generation Using Static Analysis to Improve Automatic Test Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 Marius Bozga, Jean-Claude Fernandez and Lucian Ghirvu Efficient Diagnostic Generation for Boolean Equation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Radu Mateescu Efficient Model-Checking Compositional State Space Generation with Partial Order Reductions for Asynchronous Communicating Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266 Jean-Pierre Krimm and Laurent Mounier Checking for CFFD-Preorder with Tester Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Juhana Helovuo and Antti Valmari Fair Bisimulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Thomas A. Henzinger and Sriram K. Rajamani Integrating Low Level Symmetries into Reachability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 Karsten Schmidt Model-Checking Tools Model Checking Support for the ASM High-Level Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Giuseppe Del Castillo and Kirsten Winter Table of

Domain-specific languages: an annotated bibliography

Abstract: We survey the literature available on the topic of domain-specific languages as used for the construction and maintenance of software systems. We list a selection of 75 key publications in the area, and provide a summary for each of the papers. Moreover, we discuss terminology, risks and benefits, example domain-specific languages, design methodologies, and implementation techniques.

Model Driven Engineering

Abstract: The Object Management Group's (OMG) Model Driven Architecture (MDA) strategy envisages a world where models play a more direct role in software production, being amenable to manipulation and transformation by machine. Model Driven Engineering (MDE) is wider in scope than MDA. MDE combines process and analysis with architecture. This article sets out a framework for model driven engineering, which can be used as a point of reference for activity in this area. It proposes an organisation of the modelling 'space' and how to locate models in that space. It discusses different kinds of mappings between models. It explains why process and architecture are tightly connected. It discusses the importance and nature of tools. It identifies the need for defining families of languages and transformations, and for developing techniques for generating/configuring tools from such definitions. It concludes with a call to align metamodelling with formal language engineering techniques.