A metamodel for the compact but lossless exchange of execution traces

Software and Systems Modeling

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 77-98

  Hamou Lhadj, Abdelwahab ^a   Lethbridge, Timothy C ^b  

^a Dept of Electrical and Computer Engineering   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Dynamic analysis; Exchange format; Execution traces; Metamodelling

Indexed keywords

ACYCLIC DIRECTED GRAPH; BEHAVIOURAL ASPECTS; COMPACT TRACE FORMAT; EXCHANGE FORMAT; EXECUTION TRACE; GRAPH-BASED; LOSSLESS; META MODEL; META-MODELLING; OBJECT ORIENTED; SOFTWARE EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS TOOLS; SOFTWARE SYSTEMS; STANDARD FORMAT; SUBTREES; TOOL SUPPORT;

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS; OBJECT ORIENTED PROGRAMMING; TREES (MATHEMATICS);

TRACE ANALYSIS;

EID: 84856231579     PISSN: 16191366     EISSN: 16191374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10270-010-0180-x     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bowman, T., Godfrey, M. W., Holt, R. C.: Connecting Architecture Reconstruction Frameworks. In: Proc. of the 1st International Symposium on Constructing Software Engineering Tools (CoSET'99), pp 43-54. Los Angeles, CA (1999).
2. Brown, R., Driesen, K., Eng, D., Hendren, L., Jorgensen, J., Verbrugge, C., Wang, Q.: STEP: a framework for the efficient encoding of general trace data. Workshop on Program Analysis for Software Tools and Engineering, pp. 27-34. South Carolina, USA (2002).
3. Chan, A., Holmes, R., Murphy, G. C., Ying, A. T.: Scaling an Object-Oriented System Execution Visualizer through Sampling. In: Proc. of the 11th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 237-244. Portland, Oregon, USA (2003).
4. Chilimbi, T., Jones, R., Zorn, B.: Designing a trace format for heap allocation events. In: Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN International Symposium on Memory Management (ISMM), pp. 35-49. Minneapolis, MN, USA, Oct. (2000).
5. De Pauw, W., Jensen, E., Mitchell, v, Sevitsky, G., Vlissides, J., Yang, J.: Visualizing the Execution of Java Programs. In: Proc. International Seminar on Software Visualization, Dagstuhl, pp. 151-162 (2002).
6. Ducasse S., Pollet D.: Software architecture reconstruction: a process-oriented taxonomy. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 35(4), 573-591 (2009).
7. Dugerdil, P., Alam, S.: Execution trace visualization in a 3D space. In: Proceedings of the Fifth international Conference on information Technology: New Generations, pp. 38-43 (2008).
8. Downey J. P., Sethi R., Tarjan R. E.: Variations on the common subexpression problem. J. ACM 27(4), 758-771 (1980).
9. Ebert, J., Kullbach, B., Winter, A.: GraX-An Interchange Format for Reengineering Tools. In: Proc. of the 6th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), pp. 89-98 (1999).
10. Eisenbarth, T., Koschke, R., Simon, D.: Feature-Driven Program Understanding Using Concept Analysis of Execution Traces. In: Proc. of the 9th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 300-309. Toronto, Canada (2001).
11. Flajolet, P., Sipala, P., Steyaert, J.-M.: Analytic Variations On The Common Subexpression Problem. In: Proc. of Automata, Languages, and Programming, volume 443 of Lecture Notes in computer science, pp. 220-234. Springer, Berlin (1990).
12. Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lethbridge, T.: A survey of trace exploration tools and techniques. In: Proc. of the 14th Annual IBM Centers for Advanced Studies Conferences (CASCON), pp. 42-55. IBM Press, Toronto, Canada, October (2004).
13. Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lethbridge, T.: Measuring various properties of execution traces to help build better trace analysis tools. In: Proc. Of the 10th IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems. Shanghai, China, June (2005).
14. Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lethbridge, T., Fu, L.: SEAT: A usable trace analysis tool. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Program Comprehension, pp. 157-160. IEEE Computer Society (2005).
15. Hamou-Lhadj, A., Braun, E., Amyot, D., Lethbridge, T.: Recovering behavioral design models from execution traces. In: Proc. of the 9th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 112-121. Manchester, UK (2005).
16. Hamou-Lhadj, A., Lethbridge, T.: Summarizing the content of large traces to facilitate the understanding of the behaviour of a software system. In: Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Program Comprehension, pp. 181-190. IEEE CS (2006).
17. Holt, R. C.: An Introduction to TA: The Tuple Attribute Language. Department of Computer Science, University of Waterloo and University of Toronto (1998).
18. Holt, R. C., Winter, A., Schürr, A.: GXL: Toward a Standard Exchange Format. In: Proc. 7th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering (WCRE), pp. 1962-171 (2000).
19. Hyades Project: http://www. eclipse. org/tptp/.
20. Jerding, D., Rugaber, S.: Using Visualisation for Architecture Localization and Extraction. In: Proc. of the 4th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering, Amsterdam, Netherlands, October (1997).
21. Jerding, D., Stasko, J., Ball, T.: Visualising Interactions in Program Executions. In: Proc. of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 360-370. Boston, Massachusetts, USA (1997).
22. Johnson, B., Shneiderman, B.: Tree-maps: A space filling approach to the visualization of hierarchical information structures. In: Proc. of the IEEE Visualization 91, pp. 284-291 (1991).
23. Johnson E. E., Ha J., Baqar Zaidi M.: Lossless trace compression. IEEE Trans. Comput. 50(2), 158-173 (2001).
24. Kienle H. M., Mller H. A.: Rigi-An environment for software reverse engineering, exploration, visualization, and redocumentation. Sci. Comput. Program. 75(4), 247-263 (2010).
25. Knowledge Discovery Metamodel (KDM), URL: http://www. omg. org/spec/KDM/1. 1/.
26. Lange D. B., Nakamura Y.: Object-oriented program tracing and visualization. IEEE Comput. 30(5), 63-70 (1997).
27. Larus, J. R.: Whole program paths. In: Proc. of the ACM SIGPLAN '99 Conference on Programming language design and implementation, Atlanta, United States, pp. 259-269. ACM Press, New York (1999).
28. Leduc, J.: Towards reverse engineering of UML sequence diagrams of real-time, distributed systems through dynamic analysis. Master of Applied Science, Carleton University (2004).
29. Lethbridge, T. C.: The Dagstuhl Middle Model: An Overview. In: Proc. of the First International Workshop on Meta-models and Schemas for Reverse Engineering (ATEM), Victoria, Canada (2003).
30. Lethbridge, T. C., Anquetil, N.: Architecture of a Source Code Exploration Tool: A Software Engineering Case Study. Computer Science Technical Report TR-97-07, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada, November (1997).
31. McQuillan, J. A., Power, J. F.: Experiences of using the dagstuhl middle metamodel for defining software metrics. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 178, pp. 194-198 (2006).
32. Müller, H. A., Klashinsky, K.: Rigi-A System for Programming-in-the-Large. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 80-86 (1988).
33. Pollet, D., Ducasse, S., Poyet, L., Alloui, I., Cmpan, S., Verjus, H.: Towards a process-oriented software architecture reconstruction taxonomy. In: Proc. of the European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, pp. 137-148 (2007).
34. Reiss, S. P., Renieris, M.: Encoding program executions. In: Proc. of the 23rd international conference on Software engineering, pp. 221-230. Toronto, Canada (2001).
35. Richner, T., Ducasse, S.: Using dynamic information for the iterative recovery of collaborations and roles. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 34-43. IEEE Computer Society (2002).
36. Systä, T.: Dynamic Reverse Engineering of Java Software. In: Proc. of the ECOOP Workshop on Object-Oriented Technology, pp. 174-175. Lisbon, Portugal (1999).
37. Scheuerl, S. J. G., Connor, R. C. H., Morrison, R., Moss, J. E. B., Munro, D. S.: The MaStA I/O trace format. Technical Report CS/95/4, School of Mathematical and Computational Sciences, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland (1995).
38. St-Denis, G., Schauer, R., Keller, R. K.: Selecting a Model Interchange Format: The SPOOL Case Study. In: Proc. of the 33rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, January (2000).
39. Tai K. C.: The tree-to-tree correction problem. J. ACM 26(3), 422-433 (1979).
40. UML 2. 0 Superstructure Specifications, URL: http://www. omg. org/technology/documents/formal/uml. htm.
41. Valiente, G.: Simple and efficient tree pattern matching. Research report, Technical University of Catalonia, E-08034, Barcelona (2000).
42. Woods, S., Carrière, S. J., Kazman, R.: A semantic foundation for architectural reengineering and interchange. In: Proc. of International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM '99), pp. 391-398. Oxford, England, August (1999).