1 / 41

Evaluation of a Business Application Framework Using Complexity and Functionality Metrics

Evaluation of a Business Application Framework Using Complexity and Functionality Metrics. Hikaru Fujiwara † , Shinji Kusumoto † , Katsuro Inoue † , Toshifusa Ootsubo ‡ , Katsuhiko Yuura ‡ † Graduate School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Japan.

feivel
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluation of a Business Application Framework Using Complexity and Functionality Metrics

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. Evaluation of a Business Application Framework Using Complexity and Functionality Metrics Hikaru Fujiwara†, Shinji Kusumoto†, Katsuro Inoue†, Toshifusa Ootsubo‡, Katsuhiko Yuura‡ †Graduate School of Engineering Science, Osaka University, Japan. ‡Business Solution Systems Division, Hitachi Ltd. This research is partially supported by International Information Science Foundation

  2. Contents 1. Background 1. Background 2. Approach 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Reuse 3. Evaluation Method 4. Case Study 4.1 Case Study 1 4.2 Case Study 2 5. Conclusion

  3. 1. Background (1/4) • It becomes important to develop high-quality software cost-effectively. • Reuse is one of the most famous techniques to attain it. • In object-oriented software development, developers reuse a particular library called framework. • A framework is a collection of classes that provide a set of services for a particular domain.

  4. 1. Background (2/4) • A department of Hitachi Ltd. develops application software for many local governments. • The developers have been using the original reuse technique based on a conventional module-based reuse.

  5. 1. Background (3/4) • 47 prefectures in Japan. • 3229 local governments, 671 cities, 1991 towns, 567 villages. • A department of Hitachi Ltd. develops application software for many local governments. • The requirement of the application is different depending on local ordinance.

  6. 1. Background (4/4) • The department is going to introduce the framework in order to improve the efficiency. • It is difficult to transfer the new framework to the development. • To motivate the developers, we need to show the benefit of using framework quantitatively.

  7. Contents 1. Background 1. Background 2. Approach 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Reuse 3. Evaluation Method 4. Case Study 4.1 Case Study 1 4.2 Case Study 2 5. Conclusion

  8. 2. Approach2.1 Purpose • We evaluate the usefulness of the framework quantitatively from two viewpoints. • saving cost • improving software quality • We conducted two case studies to evaluate it. • Application : Applications for local governments • Language : Java

  9. 2.2 ReuseConventional module-based reuse (1/2) • An application consists of a main module and some screen control modules. • The main module controls business logics and screen transitions of the application. • Each screen control module corresponds to one screen. A：Database renewal program Screen transition controller X1：Data Inquiry Y1：Showing the Inquiry Result Z1：Updating the Record (a) Health insurance application for a local government A

  10. X2：Data Inquiry Y2：Showing the Inquiry Result Z2：Updating the Record 2.2 ReuseConventional module-based reuse (2/2) A：Database renewal program Screen transition controller X1：Data Inquiry Y1：Showing the Inquiry Result Z1：Updating the Record (a) Health insurance application for a local government A B：Database renewal program Screen transition controller (b) Health insurance application for a local government B

  11. Database Renewal Program B Specific Parameters to a Local Government B 2.2 ReuseFramework-based reuse • The framework is intended to reuse the processing of the transition of the screens in addition to module-based reuse. • Typical transitions of screens are prepared. • data inquiry, data renewal, data addition, data removal, etc. Database Renewal Program A F1：　Framework Database renewal Framework Specific Parameters to a Local Government A Data Inquiry Showing the Inquiry Result Updating the Record

  12. Contents 1. Background 1. Background 2. Approach 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Reuse 3. Evaluation Method 4. Case Study 4.1 Case Study 1 4.2 Case Study 2 5. Conclusion

  13. Ca framework-based reuse FW FW：framework Pa conventional reuse 3. Evaluation Method • We compare the framework-based reuse with the conventional module-based reuse from the viewpoints of cost and quality. (Case Study 1) Developing applications that have the same functions. Specification of function fa

  14. Ca+b Ca+b+c FW FW Specification of function fb Specification of function fc Pa+b Pa+b+c 3. Evaluation Method (Case Study 2) Adding functions to the existing application. Ca framework-based reuse FW Specification of function fa Pa conventional reuse

  15. 3. Evaluation Method Metrics used in the case studies • We could not collect the actual effort and the number of faults. • We used following metrics to indirectly evaluate the productivity and quality. • OOFP (Object-Oriented Function Point) measures functionality. productivity. • C&K metrics (Chidamber and Kemerer’s metrics) measure complexity. quality.

  16. 3. Evaluation Method OOFP（Object Oriented Function Points§) • OOFP is an adaptation of FP(Function Point) to enable the measurement of object-oriented analysis and design specifications. • FP is measured from logical files(Internal Logical Files:ILFs, External Interface Files:EIFs) and transactions (inputs, outputs, inquiries). • OOFP is measured from logical files (ILF, EIF) and transactions (Service Requests:SRs). • Classes correspond to logical files • Methods correspond to transactions §:G.Caldiera, G.Antoniol, R.Fiutem, C.Lokan, “Definition and Experimental Evaluation of Function Points for Object-Oriented Systems”, IEEE, Proc. of METRICS98, pp.167-178 (1998).

  17. 3. Evaluation Method C&K metrics (Chidamber and Kemerer’s metrics)

  18. Contents 1. Background 1. Background 2. Approach 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Reuse 3. Evaluation Method 4. Case Study 4.1 Case Study 1 4.2 Case Study 2 5. Conclusion

  19. 4. Case Study4.1 Case Study 1 • Four applications Ca, Cb, Cc, Cd are developed using the framework-based reuse. • Four applications Pa, Pb, Pc, Pd are developed using the conventional reuse. • Ci and Pi (i = a,b,c,d) implement the same function fi.

  20. Ca framework-based reuse FW Pa conventional reuse 4.1 Case Study 1 • We compared Ci with Pi from the viewpoints of productivity and quality. • We measured OOFP and C&K metrics from newly developed part of each application. FW：framework Specification of function fa FW：framework : newly developed

  21. 4.1 Case Study 1Result of case study 1 C&K metrics are the average values per class

  22. 4.1 Case Study 1Analysis of OOFP OOFP(Ci) < OOFP(Pi) Application development using framework reduces the effort of development.

  23. 4.1 Case Study 1Analysis of OOFP • To develop the framework, initial investment (effort) is needed. • The OOFP of the framework FW is 1298. • The framework-based reuse is about 2.5 times more effective than the conventional reuse. • The department develops the similar applications repeatedly. • It will save the effort after three or four applications have been developed, whereas the investment for the framework was spent.

  24. 4.1 Case Study 1Analysis of CBO and RFC CBO(Ci) > CBO(Pi), RFC(Ci) > RFC(Pi) All of the methods called by Ci are included in the framework. If the framework is high quality, the complexity does not affect the quality of the overall application program.

  25. 4.1 Case Study 1Analysis of WMC and LCOM WMC(Ci) > WMC(Pi), LCOM(Ci) > LCOM(Pi) There are many simple methods, that set/get the values of the attribute. The complexity does not affect the quality of the overall application program.

  26. Contents 1. Background 1. Background 2. Approach 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Reuse 3. Evaluation Method 4. Case Study 4.1 Case Study 1 4.2 Case Study 2 5. Conclusion

  27. 4.2 Case Study 2 • At first, application Ca and Pa are developed. • Function fb, fc, fd are continuously added to Ca and Pa. • Ci and Pi (i = a,a+b,a+b+c,a+b+c+d) implement the same function fi.

  28. Specification of function fb Specification of function fc 4.2 Case Study 2 • We compared the differences between the two successive applications from the viewpoint of productivity and quality. • We measured OOFP and C&K metrics from newly developed part of each application. Ca Ca+b Ca+b+c framework-based reuse FW FW FW Specification of function fa Pa Pa+b Pa+b+c conventional reuse

  29. 4.2 Case Study 2Result of case study 2 C&K metrics are the average values per class

  30. 75 89 327 234 165 235 4.2 Case Study 2Analysis of OOFP OOFP(Ca+b+c - Ca+b) > OOFP(Pa+b+c - Pa+b) The adaptability of the framework to the function fc is not good. It is necessary to add new components for the functions like fc to the framework.

  31. 4.2 Case Study 2Analysis of OOFP OOFP(Ca+b+c+d) < OOFP(Pa+b+c+d) The framework-based reuse is more effective to reduce the effort of development than the conventional reuse.

  32. 1.2 0.9 2.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 13.4 1.7 -0.1 0.3 -1.8 1.9 4.2 Case Study 2Analysis of CBO and RFC RFC(Ca+b+c - Ca+b) > RFC(Pa+b+c - Pa+b) Ca+b+c calls a lot of methods included in the framework, in order to handle many data items in the function fc. If the framework is high quality, the complexity does not affect the overall application program.

  33. Contents 1. Background 1. Background 2. Approach 2.1 Purpose 2.2 Reuse 3. Evaluation Method 4. Case Study 4.1 Case Study 1 4.2 Case Study 2 5. Conclusion

  34. 5. Conclusions • We have experimentally evaluated the usefulness of the framework quantitatively from the viewpoints of quality and saving cost. • As the result of the case studies, the framework-based reuse is more effective than the conventional reuse. • In order to show the usefulness of the framework, we are going to apply the framework to many software development projects in future.

  35. Appendix How to measure OOFP(1) OOFP=OOFPILF+OOFPEIF+OOFPSR • For each ILF, OOFPILF is measured using DETs (Data Element Types) and RETs (Record Element Types). • For each EIF, OOFPEIF is measured using DETs and RETs. • For each SR, OOFPSR is measured using DETs and FTRs (File Types Referenced). • Finally, OOFP is calculated by summing up OOFPILF, OOFPEIF and OOFPSR.

  36. AppendixHow to measure OOFP (2) • To calculate OOFP from Java source code, we suppose that the concepts in Java correspond to ones in OOFP as follows.

  37. -1.3 -0.1 8.5 -0.2 -3.0 8.2 0.2 0.0 LCOM(Ca+b+c - Ca+b) > LCOM(Pa+b+c - Pa+b) There are a lot of set/get methods in Ca+b+c , in order to handle many data items in the function fc. 0.7 0.0 -0.4 0.6 AppendixCase Study 2; Analysis of WMC and LCOM (1)

  38. -1.3 -0.1 8.5 -0.2 -3.0 8.2 0.2 0.0 LCOM(Ca+b+c+d - Ca+b+c) < LCOM(Pa+b+c+d - Pa+b+c) There are complex transitions of the screens in function fd. In Pa+b+c+d , the LCOM values of the classes implement these transactions are high. 0.7 0.0 -0.4 0.6 AppendixCase Study 2; Analysis of WMC and LCOM (2)

  39. WMC(Ci) > WMC(Pi), LCOM(Ci) > LCOM(Pi) We examined the classes of Ci that have high WMC and LCOM values. It is found that there are many simple methods, that set/get the values of the attribute. AppendixCase Study 2; Analysis of WMC and LCOM (3)

  40. AppendixProcess of Case Study • Development of the framework • Case Study1 • Two developers • Develop Ca, Cb, Cc, Cd • Develop Pa, Pb, Pc, Pd • Case Study2 • Two developers • Develop Ca, Ca+b, Ca+b+c, Ca+b+c+d • Develop Pa, Pa+b, Pa+b+c, Pa+b+c+d • Apply the metrics to the applications. • Analysis

More Related