Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jochen Palz

dblp:200/1150 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2017
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Requirements engineering and software design · 67% Programming languages and type systems · 33%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Requirements engineering and software design
projectional editing
0.312017
PEoPL: projectional editing of product lines · ICSE 2017
Requirements engineering and software design
software product lines
0.312017
PEoPL: projectional editing of product lines · ICSE 2017

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

projectional editing · 0.3IDE tailoring · 0.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2017 PEoPL: projectional editing of product lines
abstract
The features of a software product line - a portfolio of system variants - can be realized using various implementation techniques (a. k. a., variability mechanisms). Each technique represents the software artifacts of features differently, typically classified into annotative (e.g., C preprocessor) and modular representations (e.g., feature modules), each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Annotative representations are easy to realize, but annotations clutter source code and hinder program comprehension. Modular representations support comprehension, but are difficult to realize. Most importantly, to engineer feature artifacts, developers need to choose one representation and adhere to it for evolving and maintaining the same artifacts. We present PEoPL, an approach to combine the advantages of annotative and modular representations. When engineering a feature artifact, developers can choose the most-suited representation and even use different representations in parallel. PEoPL relies on separating a product line into an internal and external representation, the latter by providing editable projections used by the developers. We contribute a programming-language-independent internal representation of variability, five editable projections reflecting different variability representations, a supporting IDE, and a tailoring of PEoPL to Java. We evaluate PEoPL's expressiveness, scalability, and flexibility in eight Java-based product lines, finding that all can be realized, that projections are feasible, and that variant computation is fast (<;45ms on average for our largest subject Berkeley DB).
Benjamin Behringer, Jochen Palz, Thorsten Berger
ICSE2