XTEAM: Architecture-Based Modeling and Analysis Tools with Metamodeling Nenad Medvidovic [email protected]George Edwards [email protected][email protected]Computer Science Department University of Southern California Blue Cell Software Los Angeles, CA
17
Embed
XTEAM: Architecture-Based Modeling and Analysis Tools with Metamodeling
XTEAM: Architecture-Based Modeling and Analysis Tools with Metamodeling. Nenad Medvidovic [email protected] George Edwards [email protected][email protected]. Computer Science Department University of Southern California. Blue Cell Software Los Angeles, CA. XTEAM Project. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
XTEAM: Architecture-Based Modeling and Analysis Tools
// out-parameter: return value free ensures $Heap[$result, $allocated];
XTEAM Collaboration• Real-time
distribution of model updates
• Automatic checks for consistency
• Conflict notification and resolution
XTEAM Use Cases• Providing design rationale
and feasibility evidence
• Weighing architectural trade-offs
• Discovering emergent behavior of component assemblies
• Testing component implementation prototypes
5
Domain-Specific Languages (DSLs)• Customized for a particular
family of problems(the domain)
• Concise and intuitive– No missing or extra features– Capture patterns– Enforce constraints– Use native symbols and terms
• Can be modified, evolved, and composed
Model-Based Systems Engineering using DSLs
• DSLs for requirements and architecture modeling and analysis– Metamodels define DSL syntax– Model interpreters define DSL semantics
• COTS tools provide only partial support for DSLs– Metamodel editor with built-in metamodeling language– Metamodel interpreter that configures metaprogrammable model
editor
Metamodel Editor
Metaprogrammable Model Editor
Model Execution
Environment (Semantic Domain)
MetamodelInterpreter
ModelInterpreter
Off-the-shelf
Auto generated
Built by engineer
Domain-Specific Model
Domain-Specific Model
Domain-Specific ModelMetamodel
Metamodeling Language
Domain-Specific Language
Executable Model
Executable Model
Executable Model
“The difficulty of building and maintaining a DSM solutionstems essentially from the complexity of the mapping between the concept instances expressed in the DSML and the code that has to be generated.”
A. L. Santos et al. Automating the Construction of Domain-Specific Modeling Languages for Object-Oriented Frameworks. Journal of Software and Systems, 2010.
Problems with MBSE using DSLs• Building and maintaining
code generators for DSLs is inherently difficult– High design complexity– Disproportionate
maintenance and evolution costs
– Hard to verify correctness– Redundant development
effort– Opaque semantics
embedded in source code
“There is a fundamental problemin keeping the model interpreters up to date with metamodel changes ... Current practice requires each model interpreter to be modified manually after each metamodel schema change. This can be a very time-consuming and error prone task for complex model interpreters of considerable size.”
Jing Zhang. Metamodel-Driven Model Interpreter Evolution. Conference on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications, 2005.
“Checking mathematicalproperties like correctness or completeness of transformations based on common programminglanguages is very difficult...”
I. Malavolta, H. Muccini, P. Pelliccione, and D. Tamburri. Providing Architectural Languages and Tools Interoperability through Model Transformation Technologies. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 2009.
“The state-of-the-art of modelinterpreter writing needs to be advanced to enhance thereusability and maintainability of this software...”
G. Karsai. Structured Specification of Model Interpreters. Engineering of Computer-Based Systems, 1999.
“Writing translators by hand...in addition to being inefficient, has yet another serious drawback: the semantic mapping between the input and the output is vaguely specified...[Building model interpreters] is the most time consuming and error prone phase of the MIC approach...”
G. Karsai, A. Agrawal, F. Shi, J. Sprinkle. On the Use of Graph Transformation in the Formal Specification of Model Interpreters. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 2003.
FCS: A Real World Example• DSL with hundreds of types
– George Edwards and Nenad Medvidovic, Model Interpreter Frameworks, Technical Report USC-CSSE-2009-514, Center for Software and Systems Engineering, Univ. of Southern California, July 2009.
– George Edwards and Nenad Medvidovic, A Highly Extensible Simulation Framework for Domain-Specific Architectures, Technical Report USC-CSSE-2009-511, Center for Software and Systems Engineering, University of Southern California, May 2009.
– George Edwards and Nenad Medvidovic, A Methodology and Framework for Creating Domain-Specific Development Infrastructures, Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), September 2008.
– George Edwards, Chiyoung Seo, and Nenad Medvidovic, Model Interpreter Frameworks: A Foundation for the Analysis of Domain-Specific Software Architectures, Journal of Universal Computer Science (JUCS), Special Issue on Software Components, Architectures and Reuse, 2008.
– George Edwards, Chiyoung Seo, and Nenad Medvidovic, Construction of Analytic Frameworks for Component-Based Architectures, Proceedings of the Brazilian Symposium on Software Components, Architectures and Reuse (SBCARS), August 2007.
– George Edwards, Sam Malek, and Nenad Medvidovic, Scenario-Driven Dynamic Analysis of Distributed Architectures, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (FASE), March 2007.