Safety-driven Software Product Line architectures Design, A Survey Paper

International Journal of Computer Applications Technology and Research
Volume 5–Issue 10, 627-640, 2016, ISSN:-2319–8656
www.ijcat.com 627
Safety-driven Software Product Line architectures
Design, A Survey Paper
Mozamil Ebnauf Elgodbe
College of Graduate Studies, Computer Science and
Information Technology
Sudan University of science & technology,
Khartoum, Sudan
Hany H. Ammar
Lane Department of Computer Science and
Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering and
Mineral Resources West Virginia University
Morgantown, USA
Abstract: Software architecture design is an important step of software development. Currently, there are various design methods
available and each is focusing on certain perspective of architecture design. Especially, quality-based methods have received a lot of
attentions and have been well developed for single system architecture design. However, the use of quality-based design methods is
limited in software product line (SPL) because of the complexity and variabilities existing in SPL architecture. With the increasing
attention to software safety, improving software safety has already become a more important issue, especially for safety-critical
systems. This study aims at surveying existing research on Software Product Line Architecture (SPLA) design based on quality
attributes, and to give an overview of the intersection of the areas of software product line architecture design and Safety Driven
Design in order to classifying existing work, and discover open issues for further research. Also this study investigates safety analysis
at the architectural level, and Safety-based Software Product Line Architecture Design (SSPLAD) approaches. Safety-driven software
product line architecture design seems to be a ‘‘discussion” topic. The study shows that there are a large number of SPLA design
methods. However, the use of safety-based design methods is limited in software product lines (SPL) due to the variability property
that can potentially result in a large number of possible systems and because of the complexity existing in safety attribute itself.
Keywords: Software Architecture Quality attributes; Safety analysis; Architectural Design; Software Product Line Architectures;
Safety-driven software product line architecture design.
1. INTRODUCTION
A software architecture is the structure of the software system.
"It describes the software elements, their characteristics and
they interact with each other" [1],[2]. A qualified software
architecture provides a blueprint for system construction and
composition. It is a main factor to a successful software
development [3]. There are many challenges in software
architecture design for example, modeling the non-functional
requirements, especially those requirements on the quality of
the software.
Non-functional requirements and quality attributes (e.g.
maintainability, performance, reliability, safety and product
evolution) are important parameters of software products.
Quality requirements of a system serve as a bridge between
business goals and software architectures [3]. There is a major
role of Software architecture in the determination of software
quality [4][5].
Importance of software architecture “Software architecture
is not only concerned with structure and behavior, but also
with usage, functionality, performance, resilience, reuse,
comprehensibility, economic and technology constraints and
tradeoffs” - The Rational Unified Process, 2002.
Software Product Line Architectures design The main task
of the software product line architecture design is to develop
the reference architecture which represents the base structure
of the member products [6]. There are several methods have
been established to create PLAs[7].
Safety-driven SPLA Design The current work in systems
engineering methods has focused on supporting a safety-
centric design process [8]. The General idea of these
approaches is that safety should be a driver for design.
Problem Description and Motivation Software architecture
design is an important or a critical step of software
development. The software architecture community generally
believes that quality attributes (such as performance, usability,
security, reliability and modifiability) of a software system are
primarily achieved through attention to software architecture.
This means that the design decisions embodied by software
architecture are strongly influenced by the need to achieve
quality attribute goals.
Nowadays, there are various design methods available and
each is focusing on certain perspective of architecture design.
The quality-based methods have received a lot of attentions
and have been well developed for single system architecture
design. However, the use of quality-based design methods is
limited in software product line (SPL) because of the
complexity and variabilities existing in SPL architecture [9].
There are increasing in the attention of software safety, so
how to improve software safety has already become a more
important concerned issue, especially for the safety-critical
systems [10]. Currently, the influence of architecture in
assurance of software safety is being increasingly recognized.
The design of the safety at the architecture level can
effectively improve software or system safety [10].
Consequently, the research activities are scattered across
many research communities, system domains (such as
embedded systems or information systems), and quality

www.ijcat.com 628
attributes. Similar approaches are proposed in multiple
domains without being aware of each other.
This study aims at surveying existing research on Software
Product Line Architecture (SPLA) design based on quality
attributes, and to give an overview of the intersection of the
areas of software product line architecture design and Safety
Driven Design in order to classifying existing work, and
discover open issues for further research.
Research Approach and Contribution
To connect the knowledge and provide a comprehensive
overview of the current state of the art, this article provides a
systematic literature review of the existing research on
Software Product Line Architecture (SPLA) design based on
quality attributes in order to identify useful approaches and
needs for future research. Also this study investigates safety
analysis at the architectural level, and safety-based software
Product Line Architecture Design (SSPLAD) approaches.
Also, the purpose of this investigation was to study and
compare the existing methods or approaches for the design of
software product line architectures. The intention of this paper
is not to provide an exhaustive survey on the area but provide
a state-of-the-art of current PLA practices and help others to
understand and contrast alternative approaches to product line
design. This paper does neither guide in selecting the right
approach for PLA design but opens up a basis for creation of
such a decision tool.
In general, with the survey we aim to achieve the following
objectives:
 to give an overview of the intersection of the areas
of software product line architecture design and
Safety attribute.
 provide a basic classification framework in form of
a taxonomy to classify existing architecture design
approaches.
 provide an overview of the current state of the art in
the product line architecture design domain.
 point out current trends, gaps, and directions for
future research.
Organization. The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
First, Section 2 presents the Overview of PLA design, The
Quality-based Design, and Safety-driven design. The section
3 outlines the research method and the underlying protocol for
the systematic literature review. The first contribution of this
article, a taxonomy or architecture design approaches that has
been derived from an iterative analysis of the existing
research literature is presented in Section 4. The second
contribution, a classification of existing architecture design
approaches according to this taxonomy, is presented in
Section 5. Finally, Section 6 identifies future research
directions based on the survey results and Section 7 presents
the conclusions.
2. OVERVIEW
In this section we present an overview of the main concepts
that are frequently relevant in the context of software
architecture, architecture design, software PLA, quality
attributes, and safety attribute.
2.1 PLA design
What is Software Product Line? Software product line is
defined as “A set of software-intensive systems sharing a
common managed set of features that satisfy the specific
needs of a particular market segment or mission [11]”. These
Systems are developed from a common core of assets (e.g. a
common architecture) in a prescribed way.
Software Product Line (SPL) engineering is about developing
a collection of systems which share great
commonalities[3],[14],[15]. The idea of SPL was initiated by
Parnas [16] and has been further developed by Kang et al
[17]. The concept of SPL is to discover both commonalities
and variabilities among member products of the product
family.
(Liliana Dobrica, Eila Niemela,2003) [9].Product-line (PL)
and reusable software components are suitable approaches for
embedded systems, which are often re-engineered from
existing systems. Important issues in the development and
maintenance of these software systems are functionality and
quality. Although there are some similarities between
embedded systems regarding quality attributes, there are also
differences. If a quality attribute is important to one product-
line domain, it does not necessarily mean it is important to
another one.
Developing a reference architecture which represent the base
structure of the member products is the main task of the
software product line architecture design [3].
The Software Product Line Architecture (SPLA) [3] provides
a coarse grain picture of structure in the software product
family. It initiates the architecture design for the member
product. In the architecture design of a product line, it must
accommodate the variability and dependency of functionality
in the components that is derived from the feature model [3].
In the last two decades, software product line Architectures
have been used successfully in industry for building families
of systems of related products, maximizing reuse, and
exploiting their variable and configurable options
[10],[12],[13].
The creation and validation of product line software
architectures are inherently more complex than those of
software architectures for single systems.

www.ijcat.com 629
Figure 1 illustrates examples of product line architecture for
embedded system [18], which is the Product Line
Architecture for a Microwave Oven.
Definition of Terms Used in the Example Class Diagram:
Kernel: Kernel in product lines represents the mandatory
features for the product line members. i.e.: they cannot be
omitted in products.
– The stereotype <<kernel>> is used to
specify Kernel in UML class diagrams.
Optional: Optionality in product lines means that some
features are elective for the product line members, which
means they can be omitted in some products and included in
others.
– The stereotype <<optional>> is used to
specify optionality in UML class
diagrams.
– The optionality can concern classes,
packages, attributes or operations. So the
<<optional>> stereotype can be applied to
Classifier, Package and Feature meta-
classes.
Variant: Variant classes are modeled using UML inheritance
and stereotypes. Each variation point will be defined by an
abstract class and a set of subclasses.
– The abstract class will be defined with the
stereotype <<variant>> and
– each subclass will be stereotyped
<<variant>>, or <<optional>>, the default
value being variant.
2.2 The Quality-based PLA Design
It is evident that there are several architecture design methods
available for Software Product Line. Among all the current
popular design methods, there are a few quality oriented
architecture design method. In the next lines we briefly
present and discuss some works.
(Len Bass et al., November 2001)[20] Their works is related
to the quality attributes and design of software architecture.
They presented an approach to characterizing quality
attributes and capturing architectural patterns that are used to
achieve these attributes. For each pattern, it is important not
only how the pattern achieves a quality attribute goal but also
what impact the pattern has on other attributes. They
embodied this investigation of quality into the Attribute
Driven Design Method for designing software architecture.
They have embarked on an effort to identify and codify
architectural patterns that are primitive with respect to the
achievement of quality attributes. They called this set of
architectural patterns attribute primitives. They embodied this
relationship in a design method for software architecture.
Their work in brief, they have a characterization for six
important attributes, they have a list and an organization for
attribute primitives to achieve these attributes, and they have
modified the Attribute Driven Design method (ADD) to
utilize both the attribute characterizations and the attribute
primitives.
However, this work concern with how to use or modify the
architectural patterns in term of achievement of quality
attributes at the architectural design level, No new method is
develop with consideration of specific attribute.
(Bosch et al., 2000) [21] Presents a design method that
elevates quality attributes from being almost totally ignored to
an important player in the design process. This method,
however, still places functional requirements as primary and
quality requirements as secondary. The method begins with a
design that achieves the functional requirements and this
design is iteratively transformed into one that achieves quality
requirements.
( Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin, Huilin Ye, 2012) [22]. Quality-driven
Architecture Design and quality Analysis (QADA) is a
traceable quality based method to design and evaluate
software architecture. QADA contains scenario-based quality
analysis to evaluate if the architecture design options meet the
quality requirements. QADA consists of three viewpoints:
structural view, behavior view, and deployment view at two
levels of abstractions: conceptual level and concrete level. It
contains several views at different levels to separate concerns
and it provides a quality-driven link between software
requirement and architecture. This work extended QADA
method by adding an extra view to improve this quality based
PLA design method.
In this framework, the quality attributes of a software system
will be taken into account in the early stage of architecture
design and the reference architecture of SPL will be elicited
based on quality-related consideration.
However, their work is just extending to QADA method by
adding an extra view to improve this quality based PLA
design method. This work may be a direction of more open
researches, especially in field of product line, that by focusing
on a specific quality attribute or other architectural attributes.
DoorSensor
<<kernel>>
+Door Opened()
+Door Closed()
WeightSensor
<<kernel>>
Keypad
<<kernel>>
+Cooking Time Selected()
+Cooking Time Entered()
+Start()
HeatingElement
<<kernel>>
Lamp
<<optional>>
Display
<<kernel>>
Beeper
<<optional>>
Turntable
<<optional>>
BooleanWeightSensor
<<default>>
+ItemPlaced()
+ItemRemoved()
AnalogWeightSensor
<<variant>>
One-levelHeatingElement
<<default>>
Multi-levelHeatingElement
<<variant>>
One-lineDisplay
<<default>>
+Read()
Multi-lineDisplay
<<variant>>
MicrowaveOvenSystem
Figure1: Product Line Architecture for a Microwave
Oven [18]

www.ijcat.com 630
2.3 The safety-based design
Software safety assurance refers to a series of quality
assurance activities during software development life cycle,
which aims to eliminate the potential dangers.
The specification of safety constraints is the first step of the
safety-constraint centered design approach [29].
2.3.1 The design and safety
While modeling software safety it is important to note that no
software works in isolation. The entire system must be
designed to be safe. The system components may be software,
hardware, users, and the environment. All must be given
consideration when developing software. All parts of the
system must be safe. Functional and operational safety starts
at the system level. Safety cannot be assured if efforts are
focused only on software. The software can be totally free of
'bugs' and employ numerous safety features, yet the
equipment can be unsafe because of how the software and all
the other parts interact in the system [27].
2.3.2 Safety analysis at the architectural level
“From a safety viewpoint, the software architecture is where
the basic safety strategy is developed in the software.” It is
very significant to study how the non-functional attribute
“safety” to be described, analyzed and verified during the
architecture construction process [10].
Although a considerable number of safety analysis techniques
have been proposed to aid software design such as Software
Hazard Analysis and Resolution in Design (SHARD) [28],
there is little analysis work focusing on an architectural level
to aid software architecture design. In particular, safety is the
entire property of a system; it is almost impossible to analyze
software safety effectively without considering system or
platform safety. We thus need a safety analysis approach that
is able to model the integration of software with hardware or
other system components and to characterise the architectural
elements at different architectural levels.
2.3.3 Safety attribut and Product line Architecture
design
As product-line engineering becomes more widespread, more
safety-critical software product lines are being built [23].
The study shown that, Nowadays, there are various design
methods available and each is focusing on certain perspective
of architecture design. Especially, safety-based methods have
received a lot of attentions and have been well developed for
single system architecture design. However, the use of safety-
based design methods is limited in software product line
(SPL) because of the complexity and variabilities existing in
SPL architecture. In the next lines we briefly present and
discuss some of the related works.
(Donald Firesmith, 2004) [24]. His work concerned with the
Engineering Safety Requirements, Safety Constraints, and
Safety-Critical Requirements. He used the concept of a
quality model to define safety as a quality factor. Thus, safety
(like security and survivability) is a kind of defensibility,
which is a kind of dependability, which is a kind of quality.
Next, He discussed the structure of quality requirements and
showed how safety requirements can be engineered based on
safety’s numerous quality subfactors. Then, He defined and
discussed safety constraints (i.e., mandated safeguards) and
safety-critical requirements (i.e., functional, data, and
interface requirements that can cause accidents if not
implemented correctly).
However, no tasks or attentions related to how design the
software product line architecture based on safety analysis.
(David C. Jensen, Irem Y. Tumer, 2013) [25]. their work
presented a method of explicit inclusion of safety into a
model-based design for cyber physical systems. This approach
enables an analysis where component-level failures can be
mapped to potential system-level hazards. This work
presented a method of representing the safety property of a
system by the introduction of the concept termed "safety
function". Further, the function of achieving safety is mapped
to the performance functions of the system. They presented a
process of concurrently developing a system concept from the
safety and functional perspective. The end result of this
process is a system architecture where components of the
system are explicitly mapped to both the functions they
perform and the role they play in ensuring safe system
operation. The benefit of this approach is having a system
representation that allows for analysis of critical events and
off-nominal component behavior to identify potential losses in
function and safety constraint violations. The perspective of
these approaches is that safety should be a driver for design.
Thus the objective of this work is to introduce a safety-centric
method of developing a design based on the functional
modeling paradigm.
However, this work does not address the design of software
architecture. The proposed method focus on inclusion of
safety into design level in general without focusing on a
specific design activity.
(Yuling Huang, 2013) [26]. Safety design at the architecture
level can effectively improve software or system safety. This
work address the problem of how to consider safety in
software architecture design phase and proposed a safety-
oriented software architecture design approach. Through the
system hazard analysis, this design approach uses the selected
combination of safety tactics to effectively improve the
software or system safety, providing a new way of thinking
for software safety architecture design.
However, this work does not take in account the concepts of a
family of architectures, namely, Product line Architectures.
3. RESEARCH METHOD
A survey is a method for collecting data about features,
behavior or opinions of a specific group of people, pointed out
as representative from a target population (Pinsonneault and
Kraemer, 1993).
The stages involved in our literature review are structured into
three phases: planning, conducting, and reporting the review,
based on the guidelines proposed by Kitchenham [30].
A systematic mapping study is launched to find as much
literature as possible, and the 22 papers found are classified
with respect to focus, research type and contribution type.
Based on the guidelines, Kitchenham [30], this section details
the research questions, the performed research steps, and the
protocol of the literature review. First, Section 2.1 describes
the research questions underlying our survey. Then, Section
2.2 derives the research tasks we conducted, and thus
describes our procedure. Section 2.3 then details the literature
search step and highlights the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Finally, Section 2.4 discusses threats to the validity of our
study.
However, the reported results are fragmented over different
research communities, multiple system domains, and multiple

www.ijcat.com 631
quality attributes. Based on this survey, a taxonomy has been
created which is used to classify the existing research.
Furthermore, the systematic analysis of the research literature
provided in this review aims to help the research community
in consolidating the existing research efforts and deriving a
research agenda for future developments.
3.1 Research Questions
Based on the objectives described in the introduction, the
following research questions have been derived, which form
the basis for the literature review:
 RQ1 How can the current research on software
architecture design be classified?
 RQ2 What is the current state of the art of software
architecture design research with respect to this
classification? And the SPLA design, Quality-
driven SPLA design, Safety-driven SPLA design
methods in the existing methods?
 RQ3 What can be learned from the current research
results that will lead to topics for further
investigation?
3.2 Research Tasks
To answer the three research questions RQ1-3, numbers of
tasks have been conducted: one task to set up the literature
review, and others research tasks dedicated to the identified
research questions.
3.3 Literature Search Process
The search strategy for the review was primarily directed
toward finding published papers in journals and conference
proceedings via the widely accepted literature search engines
and databases Google Scholar, IEEE Explore, and Elsevier
ScienceDirect. For the search we focused on selected
keywords, based on the aimed scope of the literature review.
Examples of the keywords are: Software Architecture, Quality
attributes, Safety analysis, Architectural Design, Software
Product Line Architectures, Safety-driven software product
line architecture design.
The keywords were refined and extended during the search
process. In the subsequent phase, we reviewed the abstracts
(and keywords) of the collected papers with respect to the
defined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria (Sections 2.3.1
and 2.3.2 below), and further extended the collection with
additional papers based on an analysis of the cited papers and
the ones citing it (forward and backward citation search).
3.3.1 Inclusion Criteria
The focus of this literature review is on software architecture
quality attributes, safety analysis, architectural design,
software product line architectures, and safety-driven software
product line architecture design. A summary of the inclusion
and criteria is: Peer reviewed publications with a clear focus
on some aspect of software product line architecture design.
3.3.2 Exclusion Criteria
We excluded papers that: (a) design a software with no
relation to software architecture, (b) focus on an architecture-
irrelevant problem, (c) focus on software architecture design
for single program without considering any quality attribute,
(d) focus on a product line-irrelevant problem.
We did not exclude papers for quality reasons, because the
quality of the papers was generally acceptable. A summary of
the exclusion criteria is: Publications where either architecture
design focus or software product line focus is lacking.
3.4 Threats to Validity
One of the main threats to the validity of this literature review
is the incompleteness. The risk of this threat highly depends
on the selected list of keywords and the limitations of the
employed search engines. To decrease the risk of an
incomplete keyword list, we have used an iterative approach
to keyword-list construction. A well-known set of papers was
used to build the initial taxonomy which evolved over time.
New keywords were added when the keyword list was not
able to find the state-of-the-art in the respective area of study.
Another important issue is whether our taxonomy is robust
enough for the analysis and classification of the papers. To
avoid a taxonomy with insufficient capability to classify the
selected papers, we used an iterative content analysis method
to continuously evolve the taxonomy for every new concept
encountered in the papers. New concepts were introduced into
the taxonomy and changes were made in the related taxonomy
categories. Furthermore, in order to make the taxonomy a
better foundation for analyzing the selected papers, we
allowed multiple abstraction levels for selected taxonomy
concepts.
4. TAXONOMY AND CLASSIFICATION
The quality of a literature review project highly depends on
the selected taxonomy scheme, which influences the depth of
knowledge recorded about each studied approach [31].This
section, present the identification of the taxonomy categories
and provide an answer to the first research question (RQ1).
In this article we provided a basic classification framework in
form of taxonomy to classify existing architecture design
approaches. As mentioned in the previous sections, here we
present two schemes of broad classifications of software
architecture design approaches, the two sections bellow are
illustrate that.
4.1 First classification scheme
As the first step of our survey, we classify existing approaches
for software architecture design into three broad categories
depending on whether they attempt to address the architecture
of single product or product line or quality attributes of
architecture.
Each of these categories contains one or more subcategories
based on the high-level strategies used to realize its goal.
Some of these sub-categories are further divided indicating
the specific intention adopted. Fig.2 and Fig.3 illustrates this
classification framework through which the results of the
survey are presented.
Software Architecture Design Methods
Architectural Design
Methods for a Single
Software
Product Line
Architecture
Design Methods
Quality-oriented
Architecture Design
Methods
Figure2: High level taxonomy of Architecture Design Approaches

www.ijcat.com 632
The papers are published between 1998 and 2014, and
summarized in Table 1. Tables 2 and 3. The total number of
classification items in Table 1 is 28.
Table 1 lists all papers on term of architecture design
approaches. Table 2 lists all papers on quality-oriented
architecture design approaches. Table 3 lists all papers on
software product line architecture design approaches.
4.2 The second classification scheme in
term of SPLA design
Here, the publications are classified into categories in three
different dimensions: research focus, type of contribution and
research type. This structure is presented by Petersen et al.
[52], [53]. However we adopt different categories in our
study. We established a scheme and mapped publications
iteratively and added them as new primary studies. When the
scheme was finally set, we reviewed all classifications again.
We identified Three categories of research focus: (i) SPLA
design, (ii) quality-based SPLA design, (iii) safety-based
SPLA design, Contribution type is classified into five
categories: Tool, Method, Model, Metric, and Open Items.
The classification of research types is based on a scheme
proposed by Wieringa et al. [53] [54]. And we classified the
research into six categories: (i) validation research, (ii)
evaluation research, (iii) solution proposals, (iv) conceptual
proposals, (v) opinion papers, and (vi) experience papers.
SPLA Design Approaches
Quality-oriented Architecture DesignQuality-less Architecture Design
Multi-quality attributes Architecture Design
Single-quality attribute
Safety-based Architecture Design
Figure 3. the taxonomy Related to SPLA Design Approaches

www.ijcat.com 633
Table 1.Papers on architecture design approaches (high level taxonomy/a broad classification)
No Authors [Ref] Paper Title year Architectural
Design for a
Single
Software
Product
Line
Architecture
Design
Quality-
oriented
Architecture
Design
1 David C. Jensen, Irem Y. Tumerb[25] Modeling and Analysis of Safety in Early Design 2013  
2 Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin and Huilin Ye [3] Modeling Quality Attributes in Software Product Line
Architecture
2012
 
3 Yuling Huang [26] Safety-Oriented Software Architecture Design
Approach
2013
 
4 Len Bass, Mark Klein, and Felix
Bachmann [20]
Quality Attribute Design Primitives and the Attribute
Driven Design Method
2001
  
5 Made Murwantara Tangerang, Indonesia
[19]
Hybrid ANP: Quality Attributes Decision Modeling of a
Product Line Architecture Design
2012
 
6 Qian Feng, Robyn R. Lutz [23] Bi-Directional Safety Analysis of Product Lines 2005  
7 Joachim Bayer, Oliver Flege, and Cristina
Gacek [32]
Creating Product Line Architectures 2000

8 Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin, Huilin Ye [22] Quality-Oriented Software Product Line Architecture
Design
2012
 
9 Weihang Wu, Tim Kelly [33] Safety Tactics for Software Architecture Design 2004  
10 Liliana Dobrica, EILA Niemela [9] Attribute-based product-line architecture development
for embedded systems
2003
 
11 Bass, L.; Clements, P.; & Kazman, R. [34] Software Architecture in Practice. Reading , Attribute
Driven Design method (ADD)
2003 

12 John Ryan O’Farrell [35] Development of A Software Architecture Method for
Software Product Families and its Application to the
AubieSat Satellite Program
2009

13 J¨urgen Meister, Ralf Reussner, Martin
Rohde [36]
Applying Patterns to Develop a Product Line
Architecture for Statistical Analysis Software
2004

14 P. America, H. Obbink, J. Muller, and R.
van Ommering [37]
COPA: A Component-Oriented Platform Architecting
Method for Families of Software Intensive Electronic
Products
2000

15 D. Weiss, C. Lai, and R. Tau [38] a family-based software development process. 1999 
16 K. C. Kang, S. Kim, J. Lee, K. Kim, E.
Shin, and M. Huh [39]
FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with
Domain- Specific Reference Architectures
1998

17 C. Atkinson et al [40] Component-based product line engineering with UML 2002 
18 Mikael Svahnberg, Claes Wohlin, Lars
Lundberg, Michael Mattsson [41]
A Quality-Driven Decision-Support Method for
Identifying Software Architecture Candidates
2003
 
19 M. Matinlassi, E. Niemel‫,ن‬ and L.
Dobrica[42]
Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis
method
2002
 
20 F. Bachmann, L. Bass, G. Chastek, P.
Donohoe, and F. Peruzzi [43]
The Architecture Based Design Method 2000
 
21 Hassan Gomaa[44] Designing Software Product Lines with UML 2.0: From
Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures
2006

22 Jianli Dong, Jianzhou Wang, Donghuai
Sun, Haiyan Lu [45]
The Research of Software Product Line Engineering
Process and Its Integrated Development Environment
Model
2008

23 Jiayi Zhu, Xin Peng, Stan Jarzabek,
Zhenchang Xing, Yinxing Xue, Wenyun
Zhao [46]
Improving Product Line Architecture Design and
Customization by Raising the Level of Variability
Modeling
2011

24 M.Sharafi, S.Dadollahi [47] A Scenario-Based Approach for Architecture
Reconstruction of Product Line
2013

25 Hataichanok Unphon [48] Making Use of Architecture throughout the Software
Life Cycle – How the Build Hierarchy can Facilitate
Product Line Development
2009


www.ijcat.com 634
26 Jing Liu, Josh Dehlinger, Robyn Lutz [49] Safety analysis of software product lines using state-
based modeling
2007
 
27 Jan Bosch [8] Software Product Lines and Software Architecture
Design
2001
 
28 Thelma Elita Colanzi, Silvia Regina
Vergilio[50]
Representation of Software Product Line Architectures
for Search-Based Design
2013

29 Broerse, C., Riva, C., Gall, H., Wijnstra,
J.g., Girard, J.F., Knodel, J., Pinzger, M.,
Pasman, W. [58]
Architecture Recovery for Product Family 2004

Table 2.Papers on quality-oriented architecture design approaches
No Authors [Ref] Paper year Single/Product
line
1 M. Matinlassi, E. Niemel, and L.
Dobrica[42]
Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis
method
2002 Product line
2 L. Bass, M. Klein, and F. Bachmann
[51]
Quality Attribute Primitives and the Attribute Driven
Design Method
2002 Support all
3 David C. Jensen, Irem Y.
Tumerb[25]
Modeling and Analysis of Safety in Early Design 2013 Single
4 Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin and Huilin Ye
[3]
Modeling Quality Attributes in Software Product
Line Architecture
2012 Product line
5 Yuling Huang [26] Safety-Oriented Software Architecture Design Approach 2013 Single
6 Len Bass, Mark Klein, and Felix
Bachmann [20]
Quality Attribute Design Primitives and the Attribute
2001 Single
7 Made Murwantara
Tangerang, Indonesia [19]
Hybrid ANP: Quality Attributes Decision Modeling of a
Product Line Architecture Design
2012 Product line
8 Qian Feng, Robyn R. Lutz [23] Bi-Directional Safety Analysis of Product Lines 2005 Product line
9 Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin, Huilin Ye
[22]
Quality-Oriented Software Product Line Architecture
Design
2012 Product line
10 Weihang Wu, Tim Kelly [33] Safety Tactics for Software Architecture Design 2004 Single
11 LILIANA DOBRICA, EILA
NIEMELÄ [9]
Attribute-based product-line architecture development for
embedded systems
2003 Product line
12 Mikael Svahnberg, Claes Wohlin,
Lars Lundberg, Michael Mattsson
[41]
A Quality-Driven Decision-Support Method for
Identifying Software Architecture Candidates
2003 Single
13 Jing Liu, Josh Dehlinger, Robyn
Lutz [49]
Safety analysis of software product lines using state-
based modeling
2007 Product line
14 Jan Bosch [8] Software Product Lines and Software Architecture
Design
2001 Product line

www.ijcat.com 635
Table 3.Papers on software product line architecture design approaches
No Authors [Ref] Paper Title Date Quality-less
Architecture
Design
Quality-
oriented
Architecture
Design
Single-
quality
attribute
Multi-quality
attributes
Architecture
Design
1 P. America, H. Obbink,
J. Muller, and R. van
Ommering [37]
COPA: A Component-Oriented
Platform Architecting Method for
Families of Software Intensive
Electronic Products
2000

2 D. Weiss, C. Lai, and R.
Tau [38]
Software product-line engineering: a
family-based software development
process.
1999

3 K. C. Kang, S. Kim, J.
Lee, K. Kim, E. Shin,
and M. Huh [39]
FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse
Method with Domain- Specific
Reference Architectures
1998

4 C. Atkinson et al. [40] Component-based product line
engineering with UML
2002

5 Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin and
Huilin Ye [3]
Modeling Quality Attributes in
Software Product Line Architecture
2012
 
6 Len Bass, Mark Klein,
and Felix Bachmann
[20]
Quality Attribute Design Primitives
and the Attribute
2001
 
7 Made Murwantara
Tangerang, Indonesia
[19]
Hybrid ANP: Quality Attributes
Decision Modeling of a Product Line
Architecture Design
2012
 
8 Qian Feng, Robyn R.
Lutz [23]
Bi-Directional Safety Analysis of
Product Lines
2005
 
9 Joachim Bayer, Oliver
Flege, and Cristina
Gacek [32]
Creating Product Line Architectures 2000

10 Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin,
Huilin Ye [22]
Quality-Oriented Software Product
Line Architecture Design
2012
 
11 Liliana Dobrica, Eila
NIEMELÄ [9]
Attribute-based product-line
architecture development for
embedded systems
2003
 
12 John Ryan O’Farrell
[35]
Development of A Software
Architecture Method for Software
Product Families and its Application
to the AubieSat Satellite Program
2009

13 J¨urgen Meister, Ralf
Reussner, Martin Rohde
[36]
Applying Patterns to Develop a
Product Line Architecture for
Statistical Analysis Software
2004

14 Hassan Gomaa [44] Designing Software Product Lines
with UML 2.0:
From Use Cases to Pattern-Based
Software Architectures
2006

15 Jianli Dong, Jianzhou
Wang, Donghuai Sun,
Haiyan Lu [45]
The Research of Software Product
Line Engineering Process and Its
Integrated Development Environment
Model
2008

16 Jiayi Zhu, Xin Peng,
Stan Jarzabek,
Zhenchang Xing,
Yinxing Xue, Wenyun
Zhao [46]
" Improving Product Line
Architecture Design and
Customization by Raising the Level of
Variability Modeling
2011

17 M.Sharafi, S.Dadollahi
[47]
A Scenario-Based Approach for
Architecture Reconstruction of
Product Line
2013

18 Hataichanok Unphon
[48]
Making Use of Architecture
throughout the Software Life Cycle –
How the Build Hierarchy can
Facilitate Product Line Development
2009

19 M. Matinlassi, E.
Niemel‫,ن‬ and L. Dobrica
[42]
Quality-driven architecture design and
quality analysis method
2002


20 F. Bachmann, L. Bass,
G. Chastek, P. Donohoe,
and F. Peruzzi [43]
The Architecture Based Design
Method
2000

21 Jing Liu, Josh
Dehlinger, Robyn Lutz
[49]
Safety analysis of software product
lines using state-based modeling
2007
 
22 Jan Bosch [8] Software Product Lines and Software
Architecture Design
2001


23 Thelma Elita Colanzi,
Silvia Regina Vergilio
[50]
Representation of Software Product
Line Architectures for Search-Based
Design
2013

24 Broerse, C., Riva, C.,
Gall, H., Wijnstra, J.g.,
Girard, J.F., Knodel, J.,
Pinzger, M., Pasman, W.
[58]
Architecture Recovery for Product
Family
2004


www.ijcat.com 636
Table 4. Distribution over research focus
Research focus 1998-2008 2009-2014 Total
SPLA design 10 5 15
Quality-based SPLA design 4 3 7
Safety-based SPLA design 2 - 2
Total 16 8 24
Table 5. Papers on SPLA design.
Authors [Ref] Title Paper Type Contribution
type
John Ryan O’Farrell [35] Development of A Software Architecture Method for Software Product
Families and its
Application to the AubieSat Satellite Program
Conceptual proposal Method
Joachim Bayer, Oliver Flege, and Cristina
Gacek [32]
Creating Product Line Architectures Solution proposal Method
J¨urgen Meister, Ralf Reussner, Martin Rohde
[36]
Applying Patterns to Develop a Product Line Architecture for
Statistical Analysis Software
Experience report Tool
Hassan Gomaa [44] Designing Software Product Lines with UML 2.0:
From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software Architectures
Solution proposal Model
Jianli Dong, Jianzhou Wang, Donghuai Sun,
Haiyan Lu [45]
The Research of Software Product Line Engineering Process and Its
Integrated Development Environment Model
Opinion paper Model
Jiayi Zhu, Xin Peng, Stan Jarzabek, Zhenchang
Xing, Yinxing Xue, Wenyun Zhao [46]
Improving Product Line Architecture Design and Customization by
Raising the Level of Variability Modeling
Conceptual proposal Open items
M.Sharafi, S.Dadollahi [47] A Scenario-Based Approach for Architecture Reconstruction of Product
Line
Conceptual proposal Method
Hataichanok Unphon [48] Making Use of Architecture throughout the Software Life Cycle – How
the Build Hierarchy can Facilitate Product Line Development
Opinion paper Open items
P. America, H. Obbink, J. Muller, and R. van
Ommering [37]
COPA: A Component-Oriented Platform Architecting Method for
Families of Software Intensive Electronic Products
Conceptual proposal Model
D. Weiss, C. Lai, and R. Tau [38] Software product-line engineering: a family-based software
development process.
Conceptual proposal Open items
K. C. Kang, S. Kim, J. Lee, K. Kim, E. Shin,
and M. Huh [39]
FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain- Specific
Reference Architectures
Conceptual proposal Model
C. Atkinson et al. [40] Component-based product line engineering with UML Conceptual proposal Tool
F. Bachmann, L. Bass, G. Chastek, P. Donohoe,
and F. Peruzzi [43]
The Architecture Based Design Method Solution proposal Model
Thelma Elita Colanzi, Silvia Regina Vergilio
[50]
Representation of Software Product Line Architectures for Search-
Based Design
Experience report Open items
Broerse, C., Riva, C., Gall, H., Wijnstra, J.g.,
Girard, J.F., Knodel, J., Pinzger, M., Pasman,
W. [58]
Architecture Recovery for Product Family Solution proposal Method
Table 6. Papers on Quality-based SPLA design.
Authors [Ref] Title Paper Type Contributio
n Type
Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin and Huilin
Ye [3]
Modeling Quality Attributes in Software Product
Line Architecture
Conceptual
proposal
Method
I Made Murwantara
Tangerang, Indonesia [19]
Hybrid ANP: Quality Attributes Decision Modeling of a Product
Line Architecture Design
Conceptual
proposal
Model
Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin, Huilin Ye
[22]
Quality-Oriented Software Product Line Architecture Design Solution
proposal
Method
Liliana Dobrica, Eila Niemela [9] Attribute-based Product-line Architecture Development for
Embedded Systems
Solution
proposal
Method
Len Bass, Mark Klein, and Felix
Bachmann [20]
Quality Attribute Design Primitives and the Attribute Driven Design
Method
Opinion paper Open items
M. Matinlassi, E. Niemel, and L.
Dobrica [42]
Quality-driven architecture design and quality analysis method Conceptual
proposal
Method
Jan Bosch [8] Software Product Lines and Software Architecture Design Experience
report
Method
Table 7. Papers on Safety-based SPLA design.
Authors [Ref] Title Paper Type Contribut
ion type
Qian Feng, Robyn R.
Lutz [23]
Bi-Directional Safety Analysis of Product Lines Conceptual
proposal
Method
Jing Liu, Josh
Dehlinger, Robyn Lutz
[49]
Safety analysis of software product lines using state-based
modeling
Solution
proposal
Method

www.ijcat.com 637
5. MAPPING
In Fig. 4, we show, based on the second classification in
section 4.2, a mapping between the research focus and the
contribution type and the research type. The research focus
items include SPLA design, Quality-based SPLA design, and
Safety-based SPLA design. The contributions types include
tools, methods, models, and metrics. The research types
include experience reports, opinion papers, conceptual or
solution proposals, and validation and evaluation research.
The Research focus is on the Y axis, the contribution type is
on the left side of the X axis, and research type on the right
side of the X axis.
6. Discussion and Results
The surveyed research work indicates safety based software
product line design being rather an immature area.
Safety-driven software product line architecture design seems
to be a ‘‘discussion” topic. There is a well established
understanding about challenges. However, when looking for
solutions to these challenges, we mostly find proposals. The
mapping shows that 74% of the papers found include
proposals, which contain ideas for solutions of the identified
challenges.
The study shows that there are various design methods
available and each is focusing on certain perspective of
architecture design and there is a large number of SPLA
design methods. Especially, quality-based methods have
received a lot of attention. However, the use of safety-based
design methods is limited in software product lines (SPL) due
to the variability property that can potentially result in a large
number of possible systems.
7. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
WORKS
Because a product line reference software architecture is the
central artifact in product line engineering which provides the
framework for developing and integrating shared assets [47],
the creation and validation of such architecture are inherently
much more complex. This study aims at surveying existing
research on Software Product Line Architecture (SPLA) based
on quality attributes in order to identify useful approaches and
needs for future research. We investigated safety analysis at
the architectural level, and Safety-driven Software Product
Line Architecture Design (SSPLAD) approaches.
The paper show that there are various design methods
available and each is focusing on certain perspective of
architecture design. The quality-based methods have received
a lot of attentions and have been well developed for single
system architecture design. However, the use of quality-based
design methods is limited in software product line (SPL)
because of the complexity and variability existing in the SPL
reference architecture [22]. With the increasing attention to
software safety, improving software safety has already
become a much more important issue, especially for safety-
critical systems [26]. We identify the following open issues,
open research issues as related to specific key publications
surveyed in this paper.
 The methodology presented by Jensen and Tumer
[25] focuses on the inclusion of safety into design
level in general without focusing on a specific
design activity such as the design of reference
architectures.
 In [22], Lei Tan et al, presented a framework for
Quality-Oriented Software Product Line
Architecture Design. The framework is defined at a
high level without specifying any modeling
techniques or tools.
 The work of Huang in [26] provides a rather
complex process for safety-oriented design using
Fault Tree Analysis techniques and safety tactics
Figure 4. Map of research focus on software product line design. Research focus on the Y axis; contribution type on the
left side of the X axis, and research type on the right side of the X axis.
2
SPLA design
Quality-based
SPLA design
Safety-based
SPLA design
Contribution Type Research Focus Research Type
Tool
Method
Model
Metric
Openitems
Experiencereport
Solutionproposal
Conceptualproposal
Evaluationresearch
Validationresearch
Opinionpaper
11
42 54
115
2 47
1 23
2
1

www.ijcat.com 638
that would be difficult or intractable to use with the
concept of variability in product lines where the
space of possible faults is very large. It remains an
open issue to research if the FTA techniques
combined with safety tactics can be used with fault
classification techniques for safety-driven design of
reference architectures.
8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was made possible by NPRP grant # [7-662-2-247]
from Qatar Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation).
The findings achieved herein are solely the responsibility of
the authors. We also thank "Department of Computer Science,
Sudan University of Science and Technology" for its support
which helped us to complete this paper successfully.
9. REFERENCES
[1] L. Bass, P. Clements and R. Kazman, Software
Architecture in Practice, 2nd ed. Addison-Wesley, 2003.
[2] IEEE-Std-1471-2000. IEEE recommended practice for
architectural description of software-intensive systems.
1471-2000.
[3] Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin and Huilin Ye, Modeling Quality
Attributes in Software Product Line Architecture, 978-1-
4577-1964-6/12/$31.00 IEEE, 2012.
[4] Nenad Medvidovic, Sam Malek, Marija Mikic-Rakic,
Software Architectures and Embedded Systems, 2003.
[5] Peter Wallin , Stig Larsson, Joakim Frِberg, Jakob
Axelsson, Problems and their mitigation in system and
software architecting, Information and Software
Technology 54 (2012) 686–700, 2012.
[6] Emelie Engstrm, Per Runeson, Software product line
testing – A systematic mapping study, Information and
Software Technology 53 (2011) 2–13, 2010.
[7] Mari Matinlassi, Comparison of Software Product Line
Architecture Design Methods: COPA, FAST, FORM,
KobrA and QADA, in 26th International Conference on
Software Engineering (ICSE’04) 0270-5257/04 $20.00,
IEEE, 2001.
[8] Jan Bosch, Software Product Lines and Software
Architecture Design, Proceedings of the 23rd
International Conference on Software Engineering
(ICSE’01) 0270-5257/01 2001.
[9] Liliana Dobrica, Eila Niemea, Attribute-Based Product-
Line Architecture Development for Embedded Systems,
2003.
[10] Rafael Capilla, Jan Bosch, Pablo Trinidad, Antonio Ruiz-
Cortés, Mike Hinchey, An overview of Dynamic
Software Product Line architectures and techniques:
Observations from research and industry, The Journal of
Systems and Software 91 (2014) 3–23, 2013.
[11] Pär J Ågerfalk, Brian Fitzgerald, Brian Lings, Björn
Lundell, Liam O’Brien, and Steffen Thiel, Open Source
in the Software Product Line: An Inevitable Trajectory,
2006.
[12] Razieh Behjati, Tao Yue, Lionel Briand, Bran Selic,
SimPL: A product-line modeling methodology for
families of integrated control systems, Information and
Software Technology 55 (2013) 607–629, 2013.
[13] Jules White, José A. Galindo, Tripti Saxena, Brian
Dougherty ,David Benavidesb, Douglas C. Schmid,
Evolving feature model configurations in software
product lines, The Journal of Systems and Software 87
(2014) 119– 136, 2013.
[14] J. Bosch, Design and Use of Software Architectures:
Adopting and Evolving a Product-Line Approach,
Addison-Wesley, 2000.
[15] Andreas Pleuss, Goetz Botterweck, Deepak Dhungana,
Andreas Polzer, Stefan Kowalewski, Model-driven
support for product line evolution on feature level, The
Journal of Systems and Software 85 (2012) 2261– 2274,
2011.
[16] D. Parnas, On the Design and Development of Program
Families, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,
vol. 2, 1-9, 1976.
[17] K. C. Kang, S. Kim, J. Lee, K. Kim, E. Shin and M. Huh,
FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with Domain-
Specific Reference Architectures, Annals of Software
Engineering, vol. 5, 143-168, 1998.
[18] Prof Hany H. Ammar, Lectures :The Software Product
Line Architectures, PhD Graduate Program, Sudan
University of Science and Technology, Khartoum,
Sudan, 2013.
[19] I Made Murwantara, Hybrid ANP: Quality Attributes
Decision Modeling of a Product Line Architecture
Design, 2012 International Conference on Uncertainty
Reasoning and Knowledge Engineering, 2012.
[20] Len Bass, Mark Klein, and Felix Bachmann, Quality
Attribute Design Primitives and the Attribute Driven
Design Method, Software Engineering Institute Carnegie
Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pa 15213 USA, supported
by the U.S. Department of Defense and Robert Bosch,
GmbH 2001.
[21] Bosch, J. Design & Use of Software Architectures,
Addison Wesley, 2000.
[22] Lei Tan, Yuqing Lin, Huilin Ye, Quality-Oriented
Software Product Line Architecture Design, Journal of
Software Engineering and Applications, 5, 472-476, ,
2012.
[23] Qian Feng, Robyn R. Lutz, Bi-Directional Safety
Analysis of Product Lines, JSSF, 2005.
[24] Donald Firesmith, Engineering Safety Requirements,
Safety Constraints, and Safety-Critical Requirements,
JOURNAL OF OBJECT TECHNOLOGY JOURNAL
OF OBJECT TECHNOLOGY, Vol. 3, No. 3, 2004.
[25] David C. Jensen, Irem Y. Tumer, Modeling and Analysis
of Safety in Early Design, Conference on Systems
Engineering Research (CSER' 13), Eds.: C.J.J. Paredis,
C. Bishop, D. Bodner, Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA, March 19-22, 2013.
[26] Yuling Huang, Safety-Oriented Software Architecture
Design Approach, International Conference on
Information Science and Computer Applications (ISCA
2013, Published by Atlantis Press, 2013.
[27] M. Ben Swarup and P. Seetha Ramaiah, A Software
Safety Model for Safety Critical Applications,
International Journal of Software Engineering and Its
Applications Vol. 3, No.4, October 2009.

www.ijcat.com 639
[28] Pumfrey, D. J., Fenelon, P., McDermid, J.A. &
Nicholson, M., Towards Integrated Safety Analysis and
Design, ACM Computing Reviews, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.
21-32, 1994.
[29] Ramakrishna, Satish et. al., “Run time Assertion
Schemes for Safety Critical Systems”, Ninth IEEE
Symposium on Computer Based Medical Systems, Ann
Arbor, Michigan, 1996.
[30] B. Kitchenham, Procedures for performing systematic
reviews, Keele University, Department of Computer
Science, Keele University, UK, Technical Report
TR/SE-0401, 2004.
[31] Aldeida Aleti, Barbora Buhnova, Lars Grunske, Member,
IEEE, Anne Koziolek, Member, IEEE, and Indika
Meedeniya , Software Architecture Optimization
Methods: A Systematic Literature Review, 2012.
[32] Joachim Bayer, Oliver Flege, and Cristina Gacek,
Creating Product Line Architectures, Fraunhofer Institute
for Experimental Software Engineering (IESE)
Sauerwiesen 6, D-67661 Kaiserslautern, Germany, 2000.
[33] Weihang, Wu Tim Kelly, Safety Tactics for Software
Architecture Design, Department of Computer Science,
University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK {weihang.wu,
tim.kelly}@cs.york.ac.uk, 2004.
[34] Bass, L.; Clements, P.; & Kazman, R. Software
Architecture in Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,
2003.
[35] John Ryan O’Farrell, Development of A Software
Architecture Method for Software Product Families and
its Application to the AubieSat Satellite Program, A
thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn
University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama,
2009.
[36] J¨urgen Meister, Ralf Reussner, Martin Rohde, Applying
Patterns to Develop a Product Line Architecture for
Statistical Analysis Software, Proceedings of the Fourth
Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software
Architecture (WICSA’04) 0-7695-2172-X/04 $ 20.00 ©
2004 IEEE, 2004.
[37] P. America, H. Obbink, J. Muller, and R. van Ommering,
COPA: A Component-Oriented Platform Architecting
Method for Families of Software Intensive Electronic
Products, Denver, Colorado: The First Conference on
Software Product Line Engineering, 2000.
[38] D. Weiss, C. Lai, and R. Tau, Software product-line
engineering: a family-based software development
process. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1999.
[39] K. C. Kang, S. Kim, J. Lee, K. Kim, E. Shin, and M.
Huh, FORM: A Feature-Oriented Reuse Method with
Domain- Specific Reference Architectures, Annals of
Software Engineering, vol. 5, 1998, pp. 143 - 168.
[40] C. Atkinson et al., Component-based product line
engineering with UML. Addison-Wesley, London, New
York, 2002.
[41] Mikael Svahnberg, Claes Wohlin, Lars Lundberg,
Michael Mattsson, A Quality-Driven Decision-Support
Method for Identifying Software Architecture
Candidates, 2003.
[42] M. Matinlassi, E. Niemel, and L. Dobrica, Quality-driven
architecture design and quality analysis method, A
revolutionary initiation approach to a product line
architecture, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland,
Espoo, 2002.
[43] F. Bachmann, L. Bass, G. Chastek, P. Donohoe, and F.
Peruzzi, The Architecture Based Design Method,
CMU/SEI, Technical report 2000-TR-001, 2000.
[44] Hassan Gomaa, Designing Software Product Lines with
UML 2.0: From Use Cases to Pattern-Based Software
Architectures, 10th International Software Product Line
Conference (SPLC'06) 0-7695-2599-7/06 $20.00 © 2006
IEEE, 2006.
[45] Jianli Dong, Jianzhou Wang, Donghuai Sun, Haiyan Lu,
The Research of Software Product Line Engineering
Process and Its Integrated Development Environment
Model, International Symposium on Computer Science
and Computational Technology, 978-0-7695-3498-5/08
$25.00 © 2008 IEEE DOI 10.1109/ISCSCT.2008.100,
2008.
[46] Jiayi Zhu, Xin Peng, Stan Jarzabek, Zhenchang Xing,
Yinxing Xue, Wenyun Zhao, Improving Product Line
Architecture Design and Customization by Raising the
Level of Variability Modeling, 2011.
[47] M.Sharafi, S.Dadollahi, A Scenario-Based Approach for
Architecture Reconstruction of Product Line, 2013.
[48] Hataichanok Unphon, Making Use of Architecture
throughout the Software Life Cycle – How the Build
Hierarchy can Facilitate Product Line Development,
ICSE’09 Workshop , SHAR K’09, May 16, 2009,
Vancouver, Canada 978-1-4244-3726-9/09/$25.00 ,
2009.
[49] Jing Liu, Josh Dehlinger, Robyn Lutz, Safety analysis of
software product lines using state-based modeling, 2007.
[50] Thelma Elita Colanzi, Silvia Regina Vergilio,
Representation of Software Product Line Architectures
for Search-Based Design, CMSBSE 2013, San
Francisco, CA, USA, 978-1-4673-6284-9/13/$31.00 c
2013 IEEE, 2013.
[51] L. Bass, M. Klein, and F. Bachmann, Quality Attribute
Primitives and the Attribute Driven Design Method, in
4th International Workshop on Software Product-Family
Engineering, F. van der Linden, Ed. Springer, Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 163 – 176,2002.
[52] K. Petersen, R. Feldt, S. Mujtaba, M. Mattsson,
Systematic mapping studies in software engineering, in:
12th International Conference on Evaluation and
Assessment in Software Engineering (EASE). University
of Bari, Italy, 26–27 June 2008.
[53] Emelie Engstrِm, Per Runeson, Software product line
testing – A systematic mapping study, Information and
Software Technology 53 (2011), 2011.
[54] R. Wieringa, N. Maiden, N. Mead, C. Rolland, et al.,
Requirements engineering paper classification and
evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion,
Requirements Engineering 11 (1) (2006) 102–107.

Safety-driven Software Product Line architectures Design, A Survey Paper

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Safety-driven Software Product Line architectures Design, A Survey Paper (20)

More from Editor IJCATR (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Safety-driven Software Product Line architectures Design, A Survey Paper