110 likes | 208 Views
Framework for Domain - Specific Visual Languages. http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/OOPSLA-DSVL2/ Juha-Pekka Tolvanen, Jeff Gray, Matti Rossi. Modelling in domain terms vs. modelling your code. Map to code, implement. Assembler. Map to code, implement. Code. Generate, Add bodies. Map to UML.
E N D
Frameworkfor Domain-Specific Visual Languages http://www.cis.uab.edu/info/OOPSLA-DSVL2/ Juha-Pekka Tolvanen, Jeff Gray, Matti Rossi
Modelling in domain terms vs. modelling your code Map to code, implement Assembler Map to code, implement Code Generate,Add bodies Map to UML UML Model No map! Generate DSVLModel Components and code DomainIdea FinishedProduct Solve problem in domain terms
Converging research areas • Methods, CASE, metaCASE • 50% use no method, 25% standard method, 25% customised • Visual Programming Languages • Domain-specific approaches • Textual DSL, Visual DSVL • Product family engineering • Code generation • Generative & template programming • Models to code: mostly structural, behaviour from state charts • Components/patterns • Raise level of abstraction • Reuse by reference, not copy and paste • Pattern languages
Main benefits of DSVLs • Fundamental productivity improvements (3-10 times) • Shorter intervals: Fast • Lower costs: Cheap • Better quality: Good • Faster change responsiveness • Manage changes in domain instead of code • Allows developers to design products with domain terms • Apply familiar terminology • Solve the RIGHT problems! • Solve problems only ONCE! • Leverage expertise inside the team • Put the expert’s knowledge in a tool • “Hide” domain complexity (DSVL includes domain rules)
DSL Case Study: USAF • Development of message translation and validation system (MTV)* • Declarative domain-specific language • + code generators and customisation of components Compared DSL against component-based development: • DSL is 3 times fasterthan code components • DSL leads to fewer errors: about 50% less • DSL gives “superior flexibility in handling a greater range of specifications” than components * Kieburtz et al., A Software Engineering Experiment in Software Component Generation, ICSE, 1996
DSVL Case Study: Lucent • 5ESS Phone Switch and several DS(V)Ls * • Reported productivity improvements of about 3-10 times • From several cases • From several DSLs • DSVLs out-performed DSLs • Shorter intervals between product releases • Improved consistency across product variants • “DSL should be used always if more than 3 variants” * D. Weiss et al, Software Product-Line Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 1999
DSVL Case Study: Nokia • DSVL and related code generators for mobile phone* • Order of magnitude productivity gains (10x) • "A module that was expected to take 2 weeks... took 1 day from the start of the design to the finished product" • Focus on designs rather than code • Domain-oriented method allows developers to concentrate on the required functionality • Training time was reduced significantly • “Earlier it took 6 months for a new worker to become productive. Now it takes 2 weeks” * MetaCase, Nokia case study, 1999
How to implement a DSVL Done a few times before! Expert (few) DSVL metamodel Code generation Component library DomainIdea FinishedProduct Easy! Generate callsto components DSVLModel Normal (many) Components
Apply in software production • Develop applications using the DSVL infrastructure • Continuously evolve your DSVL • Domain & platforms evolve
Further information: www.metacase.com/dsm.html • Related events: • OOPSLA’01: Workshop on Domain-Specific Visual Languages • HCC: IEEE Symposium on Human-Centric Computing Languages and Environments • GT-VMT '02: International Workshop on Graph Transformation and Visual Modeling Techniques • ECOOP’00: Workshop on Model Engineering • Experience reports: • Honeywell • NASA • Nokia • Pecunet • LexiFi • DuPont • Lucent • USAF
Thank you! Questions or comments? MetaCase Consulting Ylistönmäentie 31 FIN - 40500 Jyväskylä, Finland Phone +358 14 4451 400, Fax +358 14 4451 405 email: jpt@metacase.com http://www.metacase.com