[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Assessing the maintainability of software product line feature models using structural metrics

  • Published:
Software Quality Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A software product line is a unified representation of a set of conceptually similar software systems that share many common features and satisfy the requirements of a particular domain. Within the context of software product lines, feature models are tree-like structures that are widely used for modeling and representing the inherent commonality and variability of software product lines. Given the fact that many different software systems can be spawned from a single software product line, it can be anticipated that a low-quality design can ripple through to many spawned software systems. Therefore, the need for early indicators of external quality attributes is recognized in order to avoid the implications of defective and low-quality design during the late stages of production. In this paper, we propose a set of structural metrics for software product line feature models and theoretically validate them using valid measurement-theoretic principles. Further, we investigate through controlled experimentation whether these structural metrics can be good predictors (early indicators) of the three main subcharacteristics of maintainability: analyzability, changeability, and understandability. More specifically, a four-step analysis is conducted: (1) investigating whether feature model structural metrics are correlated with feature model maintainability through the employment of classical statistical correlation techniques; (2) understanding how well each of the structural metrics can serve as discriminatory references for maintainability; (3) identifying the sufficient set of structural metrics for evaluating each of the subcharacteristics of maintainability; and (4) evaluating how well different prediction models based on the proposed structural metrics can perform in indicating the maintainability of a feature model. Results obtained from the controlled experiment support the idea that useful prediction models can be built for the purpose of evaluating feature model maintainability using early structural metrics. Some of the structural metrics show significant correlation with the subjective perception of the subjects about the maintainability of the feature models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://splot-research.org/.

  2. http://fm.gsdlab.org/index.php?title=Format:SXFM.

References

  • Al-Kilidar, H., Cox, K., & Kitchenham, B. (2005). The use and usefulness of the ISO/IEC 9126 quality standard. In 2005 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005 (p. 7). IEEE.

  • Babar, M., Chen, L., & Shull, F. (2010). Managing variability in software product lines. IEEE Software, 27(3), 89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagheri, E., Noia, T. D., Ragone, A., & Gasevic, D. (2010). Configuring software product line feature models based on stakeholders’ soft and hard requirements. In The 14th International Software Product Line Conference. Springer.

  • Bansiya, J., & Davis, C. (2002). A hierarchical model for object-oriented design quality assessment. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 28(1), 4–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbacci, M., Klein, M., Longstaff, T., & Weinstock, C. (1995). Quality attributes. SEI, December.

  • Basili, V., Shull, F., & Lanubile, F. (1999). Building knowledge through families of experiments. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), 456–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batory, D. (2005). Feature models, grammars, and propositional formulas. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3714, 7.

  • Benavides, D., Segura, S., Trinidad, P., & Ruiz-Cortes, A. (2007). FAMA: Tooling a framework for the automated analysis of feature models. In Proceeding of the 1st International Workshop on Variability Modelling of Software-intensive Systems (VAMOS) (pp. 129–134).

  • Benavides, D., Trinidad, P., & Ruiz-Cortes, A. (2005). Automated reasoning on feature models. In LNCS, Advanced Information Systems Engineering: 17th International Conference, CAiSE 2005 (Vol. 3520, pp. 491–503). Springer.

  • Boskovic, M., Bagheri, E., Gasevic, D., Mohabbati, B., Kaviani, N., & Hatala, M. (2010). Automated staged configuration with semantic web technologies. In International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering. World Scientific.

  • Briand, L., Bunse, C., & Daly, J. (2001). A controlled experiment for evaluating quality guidelines on the maintainability of object-oriented designs. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(6), 513–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briand, L., Morasca, S., & Basili, V. (1996). Property-based software engineering measurement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22(1), 68–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briand, L., Wust, J., Daly, J., & VictorPorter, D. (2000). Exploring the relationships between design measures and software quality in object-oriented systems. Journal of Systems and Software, 51(3), 245–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briand, L. C., Wüst, J., Ikonomovski, S. V., & Lounis, H. (1999). Investigating quality factors in object-oriented designs: An industrial case study. In ICSE’99: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Software engineering (pp. 345–354). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Cant, S., Henderson-Sellers, B., & Jeffery, D. (1994). Application of cognitive complexity metrics to object-oriented programs. Journal of Object Oriented Programming, 7, 52–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chidamber, S., Kemerer, C., & MIT, C. (1994). A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(6), 476–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Lemus, J. A., Genero, M., Manso, M. E., Morasca, S., & Piattini, M. (2009). Assessing the understandability of uml statechart diagrams with composite states—A family of empirical studies. Empirical Software Engineering, 14(6), 685–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz-Lemus, J. A., Maes, A., Genero, M., Poels, G., & Piattini, M. (2010). The impact of structural complexity on the understandability of uml statechart diagrams. Information Science, 180(11), 2209–2220.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., & Eisenecker, U. (2005). Formalizing cardinality-based feature models and their specialization. Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 10(1), 7–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Oliveira, E. A. Jr., Gimenes, I. M. S., & Maldonado, J. C. (2008). A metric suite to support software product line architectures. In XXXIV Conferncia Latinoamericana de Informtica (CLEI 2008).

  • Etxeberria, L., & Sagardui, G. (2008). Variability driven quality evaluation in software product lines. In Proceedings of the 12th International Software Product Line Conference (pp. 243–252). IEEE.

  • Fenton, N. (1994). Software measurement: A necessary scientific basis. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, 20(3), 199–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (1999). A critique of software defect prediction models. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(5), 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N., & Neil, M. (1999). Software metrics: Successes, failures and new directions. Journal of Systems and Software, 47(2–3), 149–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenton, N., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1997). Software metrics: A rigorous and practical approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: PWS Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkelstein, L. (2003). Widely, strongly and weakly defined measurement. Measurement, 34(1), 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, S. (1995). Weka: The waikato environment for knowledge analysis. In Proceedings of the New Zealand Computer Science Research Students Conference (pp. 57–64). Citeseer.

  • Genero, M., Olivas, J., Piattini, M., & Romero, F. (2001). Using metrics to predict OO information systems maintainability. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 388–401). Springer.

  • Genero, M., Poels, G., & Piattini, M. (2008). Defining and validating metrics for assessing the understandability of entity-relationship diagrams. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 64(3), 534–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griss, M., Favaro, J., & dAlessandro, M. (1998). Integrating feature modeling with the RSEB. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Software Reuse (pp. 76–85). Citeseer.

  • Hall, M., & Smith, L. (1997). Feature subset selection: A correlation based filter approach. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 855–858).

  • Herrmannsdoerfer, M., Ratiu, D., & Koegel, M. (2010). Metamodel usage analysis for identifying metamodel improvements. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Software Language Engineering.

  • Hershey, J., & Olsen, P. (2007). Approximating the Kullback Leibler divergence between Gaussian mixture models. In IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2007, Vol. 4, ICASSP 2007.

  • Hitz, M., & Montazeri, B. (1995). Measuring coupling and cohesion in object-oriented systems. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Applied Corporate Computing, 50, 75–76.

  • Hosmer, D., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. New York: Wiley.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, D., & Evans, D. (2010). Problems with scoring methods and ordinal scales in risk assessment. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(3), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janota, M., & Kiniry, J. (2007). Reasoning about feature models in higher-order logic. In Software Product Line Conference, 2007. SPLC 2007. 11th International (pp. 13–22).

  • Jarzabek, S., Yang, B., & Yoeun, S. (2006). Addressing quality attributes in domain analysis for product lines. IEE Proceedings-Software, 153, 61.

  • Jones, C. (2008). Applied software measurement. New York: McGraw-Hill Osborne Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang, K., Cohen, S., Hess, J., Novak, W., & Peterson, A., C.-M. U. P. P. S. E. INST. (1990). Feature-oriented domain analysis (FODA) feasibility study. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Software Engineering Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazman, R., Klein, M., Barbacci, M., Longstaff, T., Lipson, H., & Carriere, J. (1998). The architecture tradeoff analysis method. In iceccs. Published by the IEEE Computer Society, p. 0068.

  • Kent, J. (1983). Information gain and a general measure of correlation. Biometrika, 70(1), 163.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., & Seliya, N. (2003). Fault prediction modeling for software quality estimation: Comparing commonly used techniques. Empirical Software Engineering, 8(3), 255–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Munson, J. C., Bhattacharya, B. B., & Richardson, G. D. (1992). Predictive modeling techniques of software quality from software measures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 18(11), 979–987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Rebours, P., & Seliya, N. (2009). Software quality analysis by combining multiple projects and learners. Software Quality Journal, 17(1), 25–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshgoftaar, T., Bhattacharyya, B., & Richardson, G. (1992). Predicting software errors, during development, using nonlinear regression models: A comparative study. IEEE Transactions on Reliability, 41(3), 390–395.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. (1996). Software quality: The elusive target. IEEE Software, 13(1), 12–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleppe, A. G., Warmer, J., & Bast, W. (2003). MDA explained: The model driven architecture: Practice and promise. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocaguneli, E., Kultur, Y., & Bener, A. (2009). Combining Multiple Learners Induced on Multiple Datasets for Software Effort Prediction. ISSRE.

  • Korson, T., & McGregor, J. D. (1990). Understanding object-oriented: A unifying paradigm. Communications of the ACM, 33(9), 40–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., Kang, K., & Lee, J. (2002). Concepts and guidelines of feature modeling for product line software engineering. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2319, 62–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., & Seliya, N. (2010). Evolutionary optimization of software quality modeling with multiple repositories. In IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 99, no. PrePrints.

  • Lopez-Herrejon, R., Batory, D. (2001). A standard problem for evaluating product-line methodologies. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 10–24.

  • Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4(2), 73–79. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.4.2.73.

  • Manso, M., Genero, M., & Piattini, M. (2010). No-redundant metrics for UML class diagram structural complexity. In Advanced Information Systems Engineering (pp. 1029–1029). Springer.

  • McGregor, J. D., Muthig, D., Yoshimura, K., & Jensen, P. (2010). Guest editors’ introduction: Successful software product line practices. IEEE Software, 27(3), 16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonca, M., Branco, M., & Cowan, D. (2009). S.p.l.o.t.: Software product lines online tools. In OOPSLA’09: Proceeding of the 24th ACM SIGPLAN Conference Companion on Object Oriented Programming Systems Languages and Applications (pp. 761–762). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Mendonca, M., Wasowski, A., Czarnecki, K., & Cowan, D. (2008). Efficient compilation techniques for large scale feature models. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Generative Programming and Component Engineering (pp. 13–22). New York, NY: ACM.

  • Olumofin, F. G., & Mišić, V. B. (2007). A holistic architecture assessment method for software product lines. Information and Software Technology, 49(4), 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poels, G., & Dedene, G. (1999). DISTANCE: A framework for software measure construction. Technical Report, KU Leuven-Departement toegepaste economische wetenschappen.

  • Poels, G., & Dedene, G. (2000). Distance-based software measurement: Necessary and sufficient properties for software measures. Information and Software Technology, 42(1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, K., & Metzger, A. (2006). Software product line testing. Communications of the ACM, 49(12), 78–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohl, K., Böckle, G., & Van DerLinden, F. (2005). Software product line engineering: Foundations, principles, and techniques. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Quinlan, J. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Machine learning, 1(1), 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selic, B. (2006). Model-driven development: Its essence and opportunities. In ISORC’06: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE International Symposium on Object and Component-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (pp. 313–319). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Serrano, M. A., Calero, C., Sahraoui, H. A., & Piattini, M. (2008). Empirical studies to assess the understandability of data warehouse schemas using structural metrics. Software Quality Journal, 16(1), 79–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siau, K., & Tan, X. (2005). Improving the quality of conceptual modeling using cognitive mapping techniques. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55(3), 343–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. The American Economic Review, 68(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessier, P., Gérard, S., Terrier, F., & Geib, J. (2005). “Using variation propagation for model-driven management of a system family.” In Software Product Lines, pp. 222–233.

  • Wang, H., Li, Y., Sun, J., Zhang, H., & Pan, J. (2007). Verifying feature models using OWL. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 5(2), 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, D. M., Clements, P. C., Kang, K., & Krueger, C. (2006). Software product line hall of fame. In SPLC’06: Proceedings of the 10th International on Software Product Line Conference (p. 237). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

  • Weyuker, E. (1988). Evaluating software complexity measures. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 14, 1357–1365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, E., & Mylopoulos, J. (1994). Understanding “why” in software process modelling, analysis, and design. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Software engineering (p. 168). IEEE Computer Society Press.

  • Zhang, T., Deng, L., Wu, J., Zhou, Q., & Ma, C. (2008). Some metrics for accessing quality of product line architecture. In CSSE’08: Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering (pp. 500–503). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the many valuable suggestions made by the anonymous reviewers of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Athabasca University, Athabasca, Canada

    Ebrahim Bagheri & Dragan Gasevic

  2. National Research Council, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Ebrahim Bagheri

Authors
  1. Ebrahim Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dragan Gasevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ebrahim Bagheri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bagheri, E., Gasevic, D. Assessing the maintainability of software product line feature models using structural metrics. Software Qual J 19, 579–612 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-010-9127-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11219-010-9127-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation