1 / 25

Metrics for the Structural Assessment of Product Line Architecture

Metrics for the Structural Assessment of Product Line Architecture. Asim Rahman asim.rahman@gmail.com. Agenda. Introduction Research Area Reseach Methodology Component Based Design Service Utilization Concept Structural Soundness Measuring Strcutural Soundness

dea
Download Presentation

Metrics for the Structural Assessment of Product Line Architecture

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. Metrics for the Structural Assessment of Product Line Architecture Asim Rahman asim.rahman@gmail.com

  2. Agenda • Introduction • Research Area • Reseach Methodology • Component Based Design • Service Utilization Concept • Structural Soundness • Measuring Strcutural Soundness • Measuring Quality Attributes • Case Study: Library System • Conclusions • Future Work

  3. Introduction • Software Reuse • Software Product Lines (SPL) as a reuse approach • SA vs SPL Architecture • Variability is Software Systems • Architectural Assessments

  4. Research Area & Questions • Questions? • How do we judge the qulaity of the structure of the architecture? • How to we quanitfy the Property? • How can this measure be used to build a better Product Line Architecture? • Motivation • Almost no published reseach in the area • Large amount of published papers in component based software engineering • Many PL approaches (KobrA, Jan Bosch, Clements) follow a component based approach

  5. Research Methodology

  6. Component Based Design • Component is a unit of composition with contractually specified interfaces and explicit context dependencies...[Szyperski ’97]

  7. Service Ultization Concept

  8. Structural Soundness • components are divided, planned and then connected together in most effective way possible to provide a solution to a well defined problem. • SS cannot be gerneralized for all architectures – property should only be compared when two or more architecture provide solution to a similar problem

  9. Measuring Structural Soundness • Four step model:Research Methodology • Identifying design/architecture properties (L1) • Identifying metrics to measure properties (L2) • Identifying measurable elements (L3) • Validating the metrics (L4)

  10. Measuring Quality Attributes (i) • Observability • Ease with which a developer can peak into the component and learn about its fuctions • Behavior of the component is observed by read methods corresponding to the the read properties • Customizability • Ability or the extent to which a component can be configured, without changing its code • Writable properties are accessed by writable methods

  11. Measuring Quality Attributes (ii) • Interface Complexity • Interface Signature • Properties,operations and events • Interface Constraints • Pre-conditions • Post-conditions • Range constraints on properties • Sequence of interface invocations • Interface Packaging and Configurations • Configurations a component can operate in

  12. Measuring Quality Attributes (iii) • Self Completeness • SC measured by return value • SC measured by parameters

  13. Measuring Quality Attributes (iv) • Provided Service Utilization • We use only the PSU value in order to determine the resuability of the components

  14. Measuring Quality Attributes (v) • Maturity • Mature component tend to be more reusable • Less testing effort • Low probability of defects • More familiarity of developers with the component usage • Known behavior in multiple situations • Some characteristics also tend to decrease the probability of reuse • Increase in size • Non-conformance from component model

  15. Measuring Quality Attributes (vi) • ...Maturity • Measures to quantify maturity • # of faults in requirement and design • # of open faults • # of closed faults • Avg. # of days a fault remains • Avg. # of days to close a fault • Avg. age of a fault

  16. Measuring Quality Attributes (vii) • Modularity • Measured by TREE IMPURITY [Fenton ’97] • Considering Optionality

  17. Case Study: Library System (i) • Based on Case Study performed by Fraunhofer Institute of Experimental Studies • Product Line of Library Systems (German Libraries) • Limitations of the Case Study • Few details on operation/service (return val & param) • Scarce information on range constraints on properties • Sequence of method invocation was missing • No details of maturity measures • Variabilty was low

  18. Case Study: Library System (ii)

  19. Case Study: Library System (iii) • Correlation Analysis of Quality Attributes • Check for mullticollinearity • If strong correlation is found between two quality attributes, then one of the two metrics must be selected • Multicollinearity • Conservative: R ≤ 0.5 • Liberal: If relation between variable remain constant, then multicollinearity is not a problem • Jenson: R ≤ 0.9 • Reasons: • Dont want to double count • Dont expect to have large data points • Carefully categorized quality attributes; hence slight indication of correlation is alarming

  20. Case Study: Library System (iv) • Analysis Test Selection • Analysis of Component Level Metrics

  21. Case Study: Library System (v) • Analysis of the Architecture Level Metrics

  22. Case Study: Library System (vi) • Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test • SCp and SCr (W = 36, N = 8) • Level of Significance = 0.005 (Directional Test) • PSU and SCr (W = 0, N = 3) • For sample sizes smaller than N=5 there are no possible values of W that would be significant at or beyond the baseline 0.05 level • CICM and SCr (W = 10, N = 9) • Level of Significance > 0.05 (Directional Test)

  23. Conclusion • Structural Assessment of Product Lines can make use of Component Based Metrics • Adaptation requires consideration of PLA specific features, variability and optionality • Aggregated value as well as individual metrics are usefull for the architects • The metrics need to be validated further by studying industrial Product Lines

  24. Future Work • Infuence towards overall quality • Degree of Relation • Unavailability of Product Line Architecture

  25. Questions?

More Related