Feature cohesion in software product lines: An exploratory study

Proceedings - International Conference on Software Engineering

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 421-430

  Apel, Sven ^a   Beyer, Dirk ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PASSAU   (Germany)

^b SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

feature cohesion; feature oriented software development; featurevisu; software product lines; visual clustering

Indexed keywords

FEATURE COHESION; FEATURE-ORIENTED SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT; FEATUREVISU; SOFTWARE PRODUCT LINES; VISUAL CLUSTERING;

ADHESION; COMPUTER SOFTWARE REUSABILITY; INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH;

SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 79959916409     PISSN: 02705257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1985793.1985851     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (30)

1. S. Apel and C. Kästner. An Overview of Feature-Oriented Software Development. J. Object Technology (JOT), 8(5):49-84, 2009.
2. S. Apel, C. Kästner, and C. Lengauer. FeatureHouse: Language-Independent, Automated Software Composition. In Proc. ICSE, pages 221-231. IEEE, 2009.
3. S. Apel, T. Leich, and G. Saake. Aspectual Feature Modules. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 34(2):162-180, 2008.
4. D. Batory, J. Liu, and J. Sarvela. Refinements and Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns. In Proc. FSE, pages 48-57. ACM, 2003.
5. D. Batory, J. Sarvela, and A. Rauschmayer. Scaling Step-Wise Refinement. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng., 30(6):355-371, 2004.
6. D. Beyer. Co-Change Visualization Applied to PostgreSQL and ArgoUML. In Proc. MSR, pages 165-166. ACM, 2006.
7. D. Beyer. CCVISU: Automatic Visual Software Decomposition. In Proc. ICSE, pages 967-968. ACM, 2008.
8. D. Beyer and A. Fararooy. CHECKDEP: A Tool for Tracking Software Dependencies. In Proc. ICPC, pages 42-43. IEEE, 2010.
9. D. Beyer and A. Fararooy. A Simple and Effective Measure for Complex Low-Level Dependencies. In Proc. ICPC, pages 80-83. IEEE, 2010.
10. D. Beyer and A. Noack. Clustering Software Artifacts Based on Frequent Common Changes. In Proc. IWPC, pages 259-268. IEEE, 2005.
11. L. Briand, J. Daly, and J Wüst. A Unified Framework for Cohesion Measurement. In Proc. METRICS, pages 43-53. IEEE, 1997.
12. S. Chang, H. La, and S. Kim. Key Issues and Metrics for Evaluating Product Line Architectures. In Proc. SEKE, pages 212-219, 2006.
13. P. Clements and L. Northrop. Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
14. E. Figueiredo, N. Cacho, C. Sant'Anna, M. Monteiro, U. Kulesza, A. Garcia, S. Soares, F. Ferrari, S. Khan, F. Filho, and F. Dantas. Evolving Software Product Lines with Aspects: An Empirical Study on Design Stability. In Proc. ICSE, pages 261-270. ACM, 2008.
15. J. Her, J. Kim, S. Oh, S. Rhew, and S. Kim. A Framework for Evaluating Reusability of Core Asset in Product Line Engineering. Information and Software Technology, 49(7):740-760, 2007. (Pubitemid 46754843)
16. D. Hutchins. Pure Subtype Systems: A Type Theory for Extensible Software. PhD thesis, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, 2009.
17. K. Kang, S. Cohen, J. Hess, W. Novak, and A. Peterson. Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) - Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, SEI, CMU, 1990.
18. C. Kästner, S. Apel, and M. Kuhlemann. Granularity in Software Product Lines. In Proc. ICSE, pages 311-320. ACM, 2008.
19. C. Kästner, S. Apel, and M. Kuhlemann. A Model of Refactoring Physically and Virtually Separated Features. In Proc. GPCE, pages 157-166. ACM, 2009.
20. C. Kästner, S. Apel, S. ur Rahman, M. Rosenmüller, D. Batory, and G. Saake. On the Impact of the Optional Feature Problem: Analysis and Case Studies. In Proc. SPLC, pages 181-190. SEI, 2009.
21. J. Liebig, S. Apel, C. Lengauer, C. Kästner, and M. Schulze. An Analysis of the Variability in Forty Preprocessor-Based Software Product Lines. In Proc. ICSE, pages 105-114. ACM, 2010.
22. R. Lopez-Herrejon, D. Batory, and W. Cook. Evaluating Support for Features in Advanced Modularization Technologies. In Proc. ECOOP, LNCS 3586, pages 169-194. Springer, 2005.
23. A. Noack. Energy Models for Graph Clustering. J. Graph Algorithms Appl., 11(2):453-480, 2007.
24. D. Parnas. On the Criteria to be Used in Decomposing Systems into Modules. Comm. ACM, 15(12):1053-1058, 1972.
25. M. Rosenmüller, S. Apel, T. Leich, and G. Saake. Tailor-Made Data Management for Embedded Systems: A Case Study on Berkeley DB. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 68(12):1493-1512, 2009.
26. W. Stevens, G. Myers, and L. Constantine. Structured Design. IBM Systems J., 13(2):115-139, 1974.
27. P. Tarr, H. Ossher, W. Harrison, and S. Sutton, Jr. N Degrees of Separation: Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns. In Proc. ICSE, pages 107-119. IEEE, 1999.
28. M. Torgersen. The Expression Problem Revisited. In Proc. ECOOP, LNCS 3086, pages 123-143. Springer, 2004.
29. A. van der Hoek, E. Dincel, and N. Medvidovic. Using Service Utilization Metrics to Assess the Structure of Product Line Architectures. In Proc. METRICS, pages 298-308. IEEE, 2003.
30. J. Zhao and B. Xu. Measuring Aspect Cohesion. In Proc. FASE, LNCS 2984, pages 54-68. Springer, 2004.