基于关注的内聚作为变化倾向指标的初步实证研究

B. Silva, C. Sant'Anna, C. Chavez
{"title":"基于关注的内聚作为变化倾向指标的初步实证研究","authors":"B. Silva, C. Sant'Anna, C. Chavez","doi":"10.1145/1985374.1985387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Structure-based cohesion metrics, such as the well-known Chidamber and Kemerer's Lack of Cohesion in Methods (LCOM), fail to capture the semantic notion of a software component's cohesion. Some researchers claim that it is one of the reasons they are not good indicators of change proneness. The Lack of Concern-based Cohesion metric (LCC) is an alternative cohesion metric which is centered on counting the number of concerns a component implements. A concern is any important concept, feature, property or area of interest of a system that we want to treat in a modular way. In this way, LCC focus on what really matters for assessing a component's cohesion - the amount of responsibilities placed on them. Our aim in this paper is to present an initial investigation about the applicability of this concern-based cohesion metric as a change proneness indicator. We also checked if this metric has a correlation with efferent coupling. An initial empirical assessment work was done with two small to medium-sized systems. Our results indicated a moderate to strong correlation between LCC and change proneness, and also a strong correlation between LCC and efferent coupling.","PeriodicalId":103819,"journal":{"name":"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concern-based cohesion as change proneness indicator: an initial empirical study\",\"authors\":\"B. Silva, C. Sant'Anna, C. Chavez\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1985374.1985387\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Structure-based cohesion metrics, such as the well-known Chidamber and Kemerer's Lack of Cohesion in Methods (LCOM), fail to capture the semantic notion of a software component's cohesion. Some researchers claim that it is one of the reasons they are not good indicators of change proneness. The Lack of Concern-based Cohesion metric (LCC) is an alternative cohesion metric which is centered on counting the number of concerns a component implements. A concern is any important concept, feature, property or area of interest of a system that we want to treat in a modular way. In this way, LCC focus on what really matters for assessing a component's cohesion - the amount of responsibilities placed on them. Our aim in this paper is to present an initial investigation about the applicability of this concern-based cohesion metric as a change proneness indicator. We also checked if this metric has a correlation with efferent coupling. An initial empirical assessment work was done with two small to medium-sized systems. Our results indicated a moderate to strong correlation between LCC and change proneness, and also a strong correlation between LCC and efferent coupling.\",\"PeriodicalId\":103819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1985374.1985387\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Workshop on Emerging Trends in Software Metrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1985374.1985387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

摘要

基于结构的内聚度量,例如著名的Chidamber和Kemerer的方法内聚不足(LCOM),无法捕捉到软件组件内聚的语义概念。一些研究人员声称,这是它们不能很好地反映变化倾向的原因之一。缺乏基于关注的内聚度量(LCC)是一种可选的内聚度量,其核心是计算组件实现的关注的数量。关注点是我们希望以模块化方式处理的系统的任何重要概念、特性、属性或感兴趣的领域。通过这种方式,LCC关注于评估组件内聚真正重要的东西——它们所承担的责任的数量。本文的目的是对这种基于关注的内聚度量作为变化倾向指标的适用性进行初步研究。我们还检查了这个度量是否与传出耦合相关。初步的实证评估工作是用两个中小型系统完成的。我们的研究结果表明,LCC与变化倾向之间存在中等到强烈的相关性,LCC与传出耦合之间也存在很强的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Concern-based cohesion as change proneness indicator: an initial empirical study
Structure-based cohesion metrics, such as the well-known Chidamber and Kemerer's Lack of Cohesion in Methods (LCOM), fail to capture the semantic notion of a software component's cohesion. Some researchers claim that it is one of the reasons they are not good indicators of change proneness. The Lack of Concern-based Cohesion metric (LCC) is an alternative cohesion metric which is centered on counting the number of concerns a component implements. A concern is any important concept, feature, property or area of interest of a system that we want to treat in a modular way. In this way, LCC focus on what really matters for assessing a component's cohesion - the amount of responsibilities placed on them. Our aim in this paper is to present an initial investigation about the applicability of this concern-based cohesion metric as a change proneness indicator. We also checked if this metric has a correlation with efferent coupling. An initial empirical assessment work was done with two small to medium-sized systems. Our results indicated a moderate to strong correlation between LCC and change proneness, and also a strong correlation between LCC and efferent coupling.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信