skip to main content
10.1145/303008.303063acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesssrConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

PuLSE: a methodology to develop software product lines

Authors Info & Claims
Published:21 May 1999Publication History
First page image

References

  1. 1.Arango, G. and Prieto-Diaz, R. (eds.) Domain Analysis Concepts and Research Directions. In Domain Analysis and Software Systems Modeling, pp. 9-31, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1991.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.Ardis, M. and Weiss, D. Defining Families: The Commonality Analysis. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 649- 650, IEEE Computer Society Press, May 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. 3.Basili, V., Caldiera, G., and Rombach, D. Experience Factory. Encyclopedia of Software Engineering Volume 1:469-476, Marciniak, J. ed. John Wiley & Sons, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.Bass, L., Clements, P., and Kazman, R. Software Architecture in Practice. Addison-Wesley, 1998 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.Bergey, J. et. al. DoD Product Line Practice Workshop Report. Technical Report CMU/SEI-98-TR-07, Carnegie Mellon, May 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 6.Foreman, J. Product Line Based Software Development- Significant Results, Future Challenges. Proceedings of the Software Technology Conference. April 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.Gomaa, H., Kerschberg, L., Sugumaran, V., Bosch, C., Tavakoli, I. and O'Hara. L. A knowledge-based software engineering environment for reusable software requirements and architectures. Automated Software Engineering, 3(3,4), pp. 285-307, August 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.Kazman, R., Abowd, L., Bass, R., and Clements, P. Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture, IEEE Software, 11 / 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.Lim, W. Reuse economics: A comparison of seventeen models and directions for future research. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Software Reuse, pp. 41-50, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.Mollaghasemi, M. and Pet-Edwards, J. Making Multiple- Objective Decisions. IEEE Computer Society, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M., and Weber, C. Capability Maturity Model for Software (Version 1.1). Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, February 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. 12.Potts, C., Takahashi, K., and Anton, A. Inquiry-Based Requirments Analysis. IEEE Software, pp. 21-32, March 1994 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. 13.Shaw, M. and Garlan, D. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, 1996. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. 14.Software Engineering Institute, Model-Based Software Engineering. http://www.sei.cmu.edu/technology/mbse/ is.html, April 25, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.Software Productivity Consortium Services Corporation. Reuse Adoption Guidebook, Version 02.00.05, November 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.Software Productivity Consortium. Reuse-Driven Software Processes Guidebook, Version 02.00.03. Technical Report SPC-92019-CMC, Software Productivity Consortium, November 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. 17.Software Technology for Adaptable Reliable Systems. Organization Domain Modeling (ODM) Guidebook, Version 2.0. Unisys STARS Technical Report STARS- VC-A025/O01/O0, Reston VA, June 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.Tracz, W. and Coglianese, L. Domain-Specific Software Architecture Engineering Process Guidelines, Technical Report ADAGE-IBM-92-02, Loral Federal Systems, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.J. Whitey. Investment analysis of software assets for product lines. Technical Report CMU/SEI-96-TROI O, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. PuLSE: a methodology to develop software product lines

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SSR '99: Proceedings of the 1999 symposium on Software reusability
          May 1999
          180 pages
          ISBN:1581131011
          DOI:10.1145/303008

          Copyright © 1999 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 21 May 1999

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate33of76submissions,43%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader