Evolution in Software Product Line (SPL) is claimed when there are changes in the requirements, product structure or the technology being used. Currently, many different approaches have been proposed on how to manage SPL assets and some also address how evolution affects these assets. However, the usefulness, effectiveness and applicability of these approaches are unclear, as there is no clear consensus on what an asset is. In this work, we plan to reduce complexity in SPL evolution management. For this goal, the difficulty is defining and modeling SPL evolution and we expect to propose a flexible way to manage it. However, a large variety of artifacts is considered in SPL evolution studies, but feature models are by far the most researched ones. Feature models are widely used to represent SPLs and have been greatly developed in the Feature-Oriented Reuse Method (FORM). Consequently, in our previous works, after observed that this method has a loose structure since it does not provide guidance to reuse and rigorously analyze its assets, we have extended FORM to FORM/BCS (the Feature Oriented Reuse Method with Business Component Semantics) by enveloping its assets among which feature models with business component semantics. The contribution and the novelty of this work is that, by highlighting formally the concept of software asset and revisiting feature business components, to add new information when analyzing a domain, such as clashing actions. conflicts or undesired interactions between existing features in a product line and new features due to evolution of the product line can be manage in a flexible way.

1. K. Pohl, G. Böckle, F. J. van Der Linden, “Software Product Line Engineering: Foundations, Principles and Techniques,” Springer Science & Business Media, 2005, doi.org/10.1007/3-540-28901-1.
2. A. Benlarabi, A. Khtira, B. El Asri, “Learning to Support Derivation of Adaptable Products in Software Product Lines,” Journal of Computer and Communications, vol. 8, pp. 114-126, 2020, doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2020.84009.
3. P. Clements, L. Northrop, “Software Product Lines: Practices and Patterns,” Addison-Wesley Professional, 2001.
4. M. M. Samary, J. Simmonds, P. O. Rossel, M. C. Bastarrica,  “Software Product Line Evolution: a Systematic Literature Review,” Information and Software Technology, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2018.08.014.
5. I. Gorton, “Essential Software Architecture,” Springer, 2006.
6. L. Montalvillo, O. Díaz, “Requirement-driven evolution in software product lines: A systematic mapping study,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 122, pp. 110–143, 2016, doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.08.053.
7. M. Nieke, G. Sampaio, T. Thüm, C. Seidl, L. Teixeira, I. Schaefer, “Guiding the evolution of product-line configurations,” Software and Systems Modeling, Springer, 2021, doi 10.1007/s10270-021-00906-w.
8. D. Hinterreiter, L. Linsbauer, K. Feichtinger, H. Prähofer, P. Grünbacher, “Supporting feature-oriented evolution in industrial automation product lines,” Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 265–279, 2020, doi 10.1177/1063293X20958930.
9. I. Sommerville, “Software Engineering,” 10^th, Addison Wesley, 2015.
10. G. Botterweck, A. Pleuss, “Evolving Software Systems,” In: ed. by T. Mens, A. Serebrenik, A. Cleve, Springer, Chap. Evolution of Software Product Lines, pp. 265–295, 2014.
11. K. C. Kang,  S. G. Cohen, J. A. Hess, W. E. Novak, A. S. Peterson, “Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study,” Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pennsylvania , USA, 1990.
12. M. Fouda, N. Amougou, “The Feature Oriented Reuse Method with Business Component Semantics,” International Journal of Computer Science and Applications, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 63-83, 2009.
13. M. Fouda, N. Amougou, “Product Lines’ Feature-Oriented Engineering for Reuse: A Formal Approach,” International Journal of Computer Science Issues, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 382-393, 2010, doi:10.1.1.402.5014.
14.  M. Fouda, N. Amougou, “Transformational Variability Modelling Approach To Configurable Business System Application,” in Software Product Line – Advanced Topic, Edited A. O. Elfaki, Intech Publisher, pp. 43-68, 2012, doi: 10.5772/37776.
15.  N. Amougou, M. Fouda, , “Feature-Relationship Models: A Paradigm for Cross-hierarchy Business Constraints in SPL,” International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 112-124, 2018.
16. N. Amougou, M. Fouda, , “Context metamodel in pervasive systems for dynamic software product lines,” Journal of Software Engineering & Intelligent Systems, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 124-137, 2020.
17. N. Amougou, M. Fouda, , “Extended dynamic software product lines architectures for context integration and management,” Journal of Software Engineering & Intelligent Systems, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 28-41, 2021.
18. A. Z. Umar, J. Lee, “A Model-Based Approach to Managing Feature Binding Time in Software Product Line Engineering,” In: MODELS 2018 Workshops, Octobre, Denmark, 2018.
19. G. P. Espinel-Mena, J. L. Carrillo-Medina, M. Flores-Calero, M.  Urbieta, “Software Configuration Management in Software Product Lines: Results of a Systematic Mapping Study,” IEEE Latin America Transactions, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 718-730, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TLA.2022.9693556.
20. T. Kehrer, A. Schultheiß, T. Thüm, P. M. Bittner, “Bridging the Gap Between Clone-and-Own and Software Product Lines,” IEEE, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ICSE-NIER52604.2021.00013.
21. K. Even-André, “Software Reuse: A Holistic Approach,” John Wiley & Sons, 1995.
22. B. Kitchenham, S. Charters, “Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering,” Technical report no. EBSE-2007-01, Keele University, Keele, UK, 2007, doi:10.1.1.117.471.
23. S. Deelstra, M. Sinnema, J. Bosch, “Variability assessment in software product families,” Information and Software Technology, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 195–218, 2009, doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2008.04.002.
24. . Johnsson, J. Bosch, “Quantifying software product line ageing,” In: Limerick, Ireland, pp. 27–32, 2000.
25. A. Pleuss, G. Botterweck, D. Dhungana, A. Polzer, S. Kowalewski,  “Model-driven Support for Product Line Evolution on Feature Level,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 85, no. 10, pp. 2261–2274, 2012, doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.08.008.
26. C. Seidl, F. Heidenreich, U. Aßmann, “Co-evolution of Models and Feature Mapping in Software Product Lines,” In: ACM, Salvador, Brazil, pp. 76–85, 2012, doi.org/10.1145/2362536.2362550.
27. L. Passos, J. Guo, L. Teixeira, K. Czarnecki, A. Wąsowski, P. Borba, “Coevolution of Variability Models and Related Artifacts: A Case Study from the Linux Kernel,” In: ACM, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 91–100, 2013, doi.org/10.1145/2491627.2491628.
28. L. Neves, P. Borba, V. Alves, L. Turnes, L. Teixeira, D. Sena, L. Kulesza, “Safe Evolution Templates for Software Product Lines,” Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 106, pp. 42–58, 2015, doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.024.
29. G. Deng, D. C. Schmidt, A. Gokhale, J. Gray, Y. Lin, G. Lenz, “Evolution in model-driven software product-line architectures,” In: P. Tiako, ed. Designing Software-intensive SystemsIdea Group Inc. (IGI), pp. 1280–1312, 2008.
30. T. Mende, F. Beckwermert, R. Koschke, G. Meier, “Supporting the grow-and-prune model in software product lines evolution using clone detection,” In: IEEE CS, pp. 163–172, 2008, doi: 10.1109/CSMR.2008.4493311.
31. L. Neves, L. Teixeira, D. Sena, V. Alves, U. Kulezsa, P. Borba,  “Investigating the Safe Evolution of Software Product Lines,” In: ACM, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp. 33–42, 2011, doi.org/10.1145/2189751.2047869.
32. N. Gamez, L. Fuentes, “Software Product Line Evolution with Cardinality-Based Feature Models,” In: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,  Pohang, South Korea, pp. 102–118, 2011, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21347-2_9.
33. C. Seidl, I. Schaefer, U. Aßmann, “Integrated Management of Variability in Space and Time in Software Families,” In: ACM, Florence, Italy, pp. 22–31, 2014, doi.org/10.1145/2648511.2648514.
34. L. Passos, K. Czarnecki, S. Apel, A. Wąsowski, C. Kästner, J. Guo,  “Feature-oriented Software Evolution,” In: ACM, Pisa, Italy, vol. 17, pp. 1–8, 2013, doi.org/10.1145/2430502.2430526.
35. C. Quinton, M. Vierhauser, R. Rabiser, L. Baresi, P. Grünbacher, C. Schumayer,  “Evolution in Dynamic Software Product Lines,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2020, doi:10.1002/smr.2293. hal-02952741v2.

Citations by Dimensions

Citations by PlumX

Crossref Citations

This paper is currently not cited.

Crossref Citations

This paper is currently not cited.

No. of Downloads per Month

No. of Downloads per Country

r Country