Open Access   Article Go Back

Software Product Line Configurations Generation using Different Types of Tools – A Comparison

A. Saini1 , Rajkumar 2 , S. Kumar3

  1. Department of Computer Science, Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalya, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India.
  2. Department of Computer Science, Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalya, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India.
  3. Department of Computer Science, Gurukula Kangri Vishwavidyalya, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India.

Section:Research Paper, Product Type: Journal Paper
Volume-6 , Issue-4 , Page no. 105-109, Apr-2018

CrossRef-DOI:   https://doi.org/10.26438/ijcse/v6i4.105109

Online published on Apr 30, 2018

Copyright © A. Saini, Rajkumar, S. Kumar . This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

View this paper at   Google Scholar | DPI Digital Library

XML View
PDF Download

How to Cite this Paper

  • IEEE Citation
  • MLA Citation
  • APA Citation
  • BibTex Citation
  • RIS Citation

IEEE Style Citation: A. Saini, Rajkumar, S. Kumar, “Software Product Line Configurations Generation using Different Types of Tools – A Comparison,” International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, Vol.6, Issue.4, pp.105-109, 2018.

MLA Style Citation: A. Saini, Rajkumar, S. Kumar "Software Product Line Configurations Generation using Different Types of Tools – A Comparison." International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering 6.4 (2018): 105-109.

APA Style Citation: A. Saini, Rajkumar, S. Kumar, (2018). Software Product Line Configurations Generation using Different Types of Tools – A Comparison. International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, 6(4), 105-109.

BibTex Style Citation:
@article{Saini_2018,
author = {A. Saini, Rajkumar, S. Kumar},
title = {Software Product Line Configurations Generation using Different Types of Tools – A Comparison},
journal = {International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering},
issue_date = {4 2018},
volume = {6},
Issue = {4},
month = {4},
year = {2018},
issn = {2347-2693},
pages = {105-109},
url = {https://www.ijcseonline.org/full_paper_view.php?paper_id=1853},
doi = {https://doi.org/10.26438/ijcse/v6i4.105109}
publisher = {IJCSE, Indore, INDIA},
}

RIS Style Citation:
TY - JOUR
DO = {https://doi.org/10.26438/ijcse/v6i4.105109}
UR - https://www.ijcseonline.org/full_paper_view.php?paper_id=1853
TI - Software Product Line Configurations Generation using Different Types of Tools – A Comparison
T2 - International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering
AU - A. Saini, Rajkumar, S. Kumar
PY - 2018
DA - 2018/04/30
PB - IJCSE, Indore, INDIA
SP - 105-109
IS - 4
VL - 6
SN - 2347-2693
ER -

VIEWS PDF XML
595 442 downloads 335 downloads
  
  
           

Abstract

Feature model`s analysis is a booming area and should be automated is a thriving research topic, an area of attraction for both practitioners and researchers from last two decades. Meanwhile, a number of methods and tools facilitate to increase the analysis of feature models and also check complexity of feature model. As numerous of tools are given by researchers and practitioners, but why a tool is used and for which purpose, it`s a basic problem and creates a blurry scenario and this blurriness generate hurdles to select an analyzing tool to analyze a feature model. To clear this picture, we present a paper, where we compare four analysis tools (FeatureIDE, SPLOT, FaMa and BeTTy) on the basis of some fundamental factors (Availability of Tool, Cross Tree Constraint, Support Testing, Fault Detection, Product Generation, Statistics of Model and Model Composer). The comparison will show in form of a table at the end of this paper, through which users can choose a tool for their work.

Key-Words / Index Term

Software product line, Feature models, Automated analysis, Testing, Validation

References

[1] K. Satendra, Rajkumar, "Test Case Prioritization Techniques for Software Product Line: A Survey" International Conference on Computing, Communication, and Automation (ICCCA), 2016.
[2] M. Qaiser, S. Muhammad “Software Product Line: Survey of Tools”, Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, 2010.
[3] C. Paul, N. Linda. “Software product lines: Practices and patterns”, Addison-Wesley, 2001.
[4] S.P.L.O.T.: Software Product Lines Online Tools.http://www.splot-research.org.
[5] S. Segura. “Functional and Performance Testing of Feature Model Analysis Tools Extending the FaMa
Ecosystem”, Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Computer Languages and Systems, University of Seville, 2011.
[6] T. Thomas, M. Jens, FeatureIDE: Overview October 23, 2015.
[7] B. David, S. Sergio, T. Pablo R.C. Antonio, “FAMA: Tooling a Framework for the Automated Analysis of Feature Models”.
[8] B. Don, B. David, R.C. Antino, “Automated analysis of feature models: Challenges ahead”, Communications of the ACM, December 2006.
[9] FaMa Tool Suite. http://www.isa.us.es/fama.
[10] Mendonça, M., Branco, M., and Cowan, D. (2009). “S.p.l.o.t.: Software product lines online tools”. In 24th Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications (OOPSLA), pages 761–762.
[11] T.Thomas, B.Don, K. Christian, “Reasoning about edits to feature models”, In International Conference
on Software Engineering, pages 254-264, 2009.
[12] S.Sergio, G. José A., B. David, P. José A. and R.C. Antonio, “BeTTy: Benchmarking and Testing on the Automated Analysis of Feature Models”, VAMOS ’12, January 25-27, 2012 Leipzig, Germany.
[13] S. Kumar and Rajkumar, “Cost-Based Test Case Prioritization Technique for Software Product Line,” Int. J. Sci. Prog. Res., vol. 40, no. 115, 2017.