更强在一起:论建筑恢复方法中的组合关系

Evelien Boerstra, J. Ahn, J. Rubin
{"title":"更强在一起:论建筑恢复方法中的组合关系","authors":"Evelien Boerstra, J. Ahn, J. Rubin","doi":"10.1109/ICSME55016.2022.00035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Architecture recovery is the process of obtaining the intended architecture of a software system by analyzing its implementation. Most existing architectural recovery approaches rely on extracting information about relationships between code entities and then use the extracted information to group closely related entities together. The approaches differ by the type of relationships they consider, e.g., method calls, data dependencies, and class name similarity. Prior work shows that combining multiple types of relationships during the recovery process is often beneficial as it leads to a better result than the one obtained by using the relationships individually. Yet, most, if not all, academic and industrial architecture recovery approaches simply unify the combined relationships to produce a more complete representation of the analyzed systems. In this paper, we propose and evaluate an alternative approach to combining information derived from multiple relationships, which is based on identifying agreements/disagreements between relationship types. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of both approaches and provide suggestions for future research in this area.","PeriodicalId":300084,"journal":{"name":"2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stronger Together: On Combining Relationships in Architectural Recovery Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Evelien Boerstra, J. Ahn, J. Rubin\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/ICSME55016.2022.00035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Architecture recovery is the process of obtaining the intended architecture of a software system by analyzing its implementation. Most existing architectural recovery approaches rely on extracting information about relationships between code entities and then use the extracted information to group closely related entities together. The approaches differ by the type of relationships they consider, e.g., method calls, data dependencies, and class name similarity. Prior work shows that combining multiple types of relationships during the recovery process is often beneficial as it leads to a better result than the one obtained by using the relationships individually. Yet, most, if not all, academic and industrial architecture recovery approaches simply unify the combined relationships to produce a more complete representation of the analyzed systems. In this paper, we propose and evaluate an alternative approach to combining information derived from multiple relationships, which is based on identifying agreements/disagreements between relationship types. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of both approaches and provide suggestions for future research in this area.\",\"PeriodicalId\":300084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME55016.2022.00035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2022 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSME55016.2022.00035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

体系结构恢复是通过分析软件系统的实现,获得软件系统的预期体系结构的过程。大多数现有的体系结构恢复方法依赖于提取代码实体之间关系的信息,然后使用提取的信息将密切相关的实体分组在一起。这些方法的不同之处在于它们所考虑的关系类型,例如,方法调用、数据依赖性和类名相似性。先前的研究表明,在恢复过程中结合多种类型的关系通常是有益的,因为它比单独使用关系获得的结果更好。然而,大多数(如果不是全部的话)学术和工业架构恢复方法只是简单地将组合的关系统一起来,以产生被分析系统的更完整的表示。在本文中,我们提出并评估了一种基于识别关系类型之间的一致/不一致来组合来自多个关系的信息的替代方法。讨论了两种方法的优缺点,并对今后的研究提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stronger Together: On Combining Relationships in Architectural Recovery Approaches
Architecture recovery is the process of obtaining the intended architecture of a software system by analyzing its implementation. Most existing architectural recovery approaches rely on extracting information about relationships between code entities and then use the extracted information to group closely related entities together. The approaches differ by the type of relationships they consider, e.g., method calls, data dependencies, and class name similarity. Prior work shows that combining multiple types of relationships during the recovery process is often beneficial as it leads to a better result than the one obtained by using the relationships individually. Yet, most, if not all, academic and industrial architecture recovery approaches simply unify the combined relationships to produce a more complete representation of the analyzed systems. In this paper, we propose and evaluate an alternative approach to combining information derived from multiple relationships, which is based on identifying agreements/disagreements between relationship types. We discuss advantages and disadvantages of both approaches and provide suggestions for future research in this area.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信