1 / 6

Group Members

Group Members. Evolution: Infrastructure. Infrastructure/Technology Subgroup Kentaro Yoshimura (Hitachi, Japan) Uirá Kulesza (UFRN, Brazil) Sergio Soares (UFPE, Brazil) Cheng Thao (UW-Milwaukee, USA) Ethan Munson (UW-Milwaukee, USA). Main Objectives. Evolution: Infrastructure.

waldo
Download Presentation

Group Members

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Group Members Evolution: Infrastructure • Infrastructure/Technology Subgroup • Kentaro Yoshimura (Hitachi, Japan) • Uirá Kulesza (UFRN, Brazil) • Sergio Soares (UFPE, Brazil) • Cheng Thao (UW-Milwaukee, USA) • Ethan Munson (UW-Milwaukee, USA)

  2. Main Objectives Evolution: Infrastructure • Assessment testbed and tools • Common data for many studies • Shared results from studies for comparison • Evolution histories • In order to learn about practices and needs • Identify evolution patterns • Refactoring support for SPL • Splitting/merging features • Support for large scale product lines • Many, many features

  3. Main Objectives (2) Evolution: Infrastructure • Real CM support for variation • Is this necessary? • Perhaps not when feature/decision models are used correctly • What does empirical evidence say?

  4. Matches Evolution: Infrastructure • Industrial experience • Yoshimura/Li/Krueger with everyone • Evidence that can be mined to motivate refactorings or version control approaches • Many practical issues that arise from large scale of feature set and product line • Empirical and case study support • Soares and Leuven group provide data • Used by Munson/Thao and Kulesza • Yoshimura/Li/Krueger can help us make sure that testbed is realistic

  5. Gaps Evolution: Infrastructure • Integration testing support • Lack of hierarchical structure to feature combinations means that no one unit is in charge of each integration • Legacy systems • Mining features from existing code • Conditional compilation  features? • build scripts  products & components

  6. Possible Future Results Evolution: Infrastructure • Assessment testbed and tools • Common data for many studies • Shared results from studies for comparison • Product line operations or refactorings • Configuration management support for SPL • Direct CMS support for impact analysis

More Related