跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(34.204.169.230) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/02/26 05:52
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:楊豐溥
研究生(外文):Feng-Pu Yang
論文名稱:設計準則對軟體維護負擔的影響之探討
論文名稱(外文):How design principles affect maintenance effort
指導教授:焦惠津
指導教授(外文):Hewijin Christine Jiau
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:電機工程學系碩博士班
學門:工程學門
學類:電資工程學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:92
語文別:英文
論文頁數:71
中文關鍵詞:實驗設計軟體維護設計準則
外文關鍵詞:experimental designsoftware maintenancedesign principles
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:1
  • 點閱點閱:111
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:0
  軟體品質的控制因為人類因子的不確定性而變得困難,尤其是當軟體開發者是缺乏經驗的時候為甚。所以需要找出方法來規範軟體開發者,以期能生產出高品質的軟體。設計準則是有經驗的軟體開發者在一次次的發展經驗中找出來的經驗法則,它可以用來規範軟體開發者。本篇論文設計一個實驗用以測試使用恰當的設計準則是否真能降低未來軟體維護的負擔(這裡以軟體維護的難易度為軟體品質的指標),所著重的是在於測試設計準則對於軟體維護的負擔所造成的影響。實驗主要由兩部份所組成,分別是軟體開發流程以及軟體維護流程。我們在軟體開發流程中使用設計準則規範軟體開發者,並於軟體維護流程中量測軟體維護的負擔。實驗的相依變數是設計準則,獨立變數是軟體維護的時間花費。相關的假設經過實驗測試後得知設計準則確實會對日後的軟體維護的負擔產生極大的影響。另一個獨立變數合作複雜度(complexity of collaboration)也被證實對維護期間的修改(modification)沒有顯著的影響。我們使用一個改良的分析方法,可以更詳細的分析實驗數據。這篇論文主要的貢獻是在於提供了一個對於實驗準則與軟體維護負擔之間關係的分析。
  The uncertainty caused by human factors lets the software quality become difficult to control, especially for inexperienced developers. There is a need to find something which could regularize developers to deliver good software. Design principles which are the insight of experienced developers, can be used to regularize the development of inexperienced developers. This thesis designs an experiment to test the capability of design principle in reducing maintenance effort (maintainability is an indicator of software quality). Our focus is to test the effect of design principles on perfective maintenance effort. The experiment composes of two processes, software development process and perfective maintenance process, and this thesis work applies design principles in development process and collect maintenance effort later. The dependent variables are design principles (which guide to determinate class hierarchy and complexity of collaborations); the independent variables are maintenance effort, including understanding effort and modifying effort. A series of hypotheses are tested and the results show those two independent variables (factors) have significant effect on maintenance effort. Another finding is that the complexity of collaborations does not affect the modifying effort strongly. An analysis technology is also introduced, it is useful in testing hypothesis from different viewpoints. Our contribution is to provide an analysis of relationship between applying design principles and the effort of perfective maintenance.
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Existed Approaches and Our Focus . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Introduction of This Work . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Organization of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS WORK . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.1 Building Blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1.2 Design Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1.3 Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.2 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4 EXPERIMENT CONTEXT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 Experiment Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.1 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1.2 Experimental Materials and Tasks . . . . . . 34
4.1.3 Experimental Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 Validity Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5 DATA ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6.1 Hypotheses Set 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
6.1.1 H1.1: Suitable design principles would not decrease the maintenance effort . 48
6.1.2 H1.2: Higher collaboration complexity would not decrease the maintenance effort . 48
6.1.3 H1.3: The compound effect of Design principles (F1) and complexity of collaboration
(F2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
6.2 Hypotheses Set 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.2.1 H2.1: F1 does not affect effort in understanding phase . 50
6.2.2 H2.2: F1 does not affect effort in modifying phase . . . . . . . . 50
6.2.3 H2.3: F2 does not affect effort in understanding phase . 51
6.2.4 H2.4: F2 does not affect effort in modifying phase . . . . . . . . 51
6.3 Other Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
A RELATED DOCUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
B ABOUT PHILOSOPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
B.1 Human Reasoning, Concept Analysis: A Semantic Way to Determine Class Hierarchy . . 62
B.2 Basic Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Vita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
[1] J. Andrade, J. Ares, R. Garcia, J. Pazos, S. Rodriguez, and A. Silva, “A Methodological Framework for Viewpoint-Oriented Conceptual Modeling,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 282–294, May 2004.
[2] A. V. Lamsweerde, R. Darimont, and E. Letier, “Managing Conflicts in Goal-Driven Requirements Engineering,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 908–926, Nov. 1998.
[3] T. Eisenbarth, R. Koschke, and D. Simon, “Locating Features in Source Code,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 210–224, Mar. 2003.
[4] P. Tonella, “Using a Concept Lattice of Decomposition Slice for Program Understanding and Impact Analysis,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 495–509, June 2003.
[5] F. Tip and T. Watson, “Understanding Class Hierarchies Using Concept Analysis,” ACM Trans. Software Eng. and Methodology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 540–582, May 2000.
[6] P. Tonella, “Concept Analysis for Module Restructing,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 351–363, Apr. 2001.
[7] B. Ganter and R. Wille, Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer Verlag, 1999.
[8] E. Yourdon, Object-Oriented Systems Design: An intergrated approach. Prentice-Hall International, 1994.
[9] B. F. Abre andW. L.Melo, “Evaluating the Impact of Object-Oriented Design on Software Quality,” Proc. Third Intl Software Metrics Symp., pp. 90–99, Mar., 1996.
[10] S. R. Chidamber and C. F. Kemerer, “A Metrics Suite for Object Oriented Design,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 476–493, June 1994.
[11] “IEEE Standard for Software Maintenance,” June 1998.
[12] S. Vinoski, “The Performance Presumption,” IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 88–90, Mar./Apr. 2003.
[13] “IEEE Standard for a Software Quality Metrics Methodology,” Dec. 1998.
[14] A. Taivalsaari, “On the Notion of Inheritance,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 439–479, Sept. 1996.
[15] K. E. Eman, S. Benlarbi, N. Goel, and S. N. Rai, “The Confounding Effect of Class Size on the Validity of Object-Oriented Metrics,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 630–650, July 2001.
[16] M. Lorenz and J. Kidd, Object-Oriented Software Metrics. Prentice-Hall International, 1994.
[17] B. A. Kitchenham, S. L. Pfleeger, L. M. Pickard, P. W. Jones, D. C. Hoaglin, K. E. Eman, and J. Rosenbeg, “Preliminary Guidelines for Empirical Research in Software Engineering,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 721–734, Aug. 2002.
[18] R. K. Bandi, V. K. Vaishnavi, and D. E. Turk, “Predicting Maintenance Performance Using Object-Oriented Design Complexity Metrics,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 77–87, Jan. 2003.
[19] V. R. Basili, L. C. Briand, and W. L. Melo, “A Validation of Object-Oriented Design Metrics as Quality Indicators,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 751–761, Oct. 1996.
[20] F. Fioravanti and P. Nesi, “Estimation and Prediction Metrics for Adaptive Maintenance Effort of Object-Oriented Systems,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 27, no. 12, pp. 1062–1084, Dec. 2001.
[21] L. C. Briand, S. Morasca, and V. R. Basili, “Defining and Validating Measures for Object-Based High-Level Design,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 722–743, Sept./Oct. 1999.
[22] L. C. Briand, C. Bunse, and J.W. Daly, “A Controlled Experiment for Evaluating Quality guidelines on the Maintainenability of Object-Oriented Designs,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 27, no. 6,
pp. 513–530, June 2001.
[23] T. Kilpi, “Implementing a Software Metrics Program at Nokia,” IEEE Software, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 72–77, Nov./Dec. 2001.
[24] W. Wiedenbeck, V. Ramalingam, and C. Corritore, “A Comparison of the Comprehension of Object-Oriented and Procedural Programs by Novice Programmers,” Interacting with Computers, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 255–282, Mar. 1999.
[25] M. Leijter, S. Meyers, and S. Reiss, “Support for Maintaining Object-Oriented Programs,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 18, no. 12, pp. 1045–1052, Dec. 1992.
[26] J. Doly, A. Brooks, J. Miller, M. Roper, and M. Wood, “Evaluating Inheritance Depth on the Maintainability of Object-Oriented Software Engineering,” Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 109–132, 1996.
[27] B. Unger and L. Prechelt, “The impact of Inheritance Depth on Maintenance Tasks—Detailed Description and Evaluation of Two Experiment Replications,” Technical Report of University at Karlsruhe, vol. 18, pp. 1–177, July 1998.
[28] S. Benlarbi, K. E. Emam, N. Goel, and S. Rai, “Thresholds for Object-Oriented Measures,” Proc. 11th Intl Software Reliability Engineering Symp., pp. 24–38, Oct. 2000.
[29] L. C. Briand, S. Morasca, and V. R. Basili, “An Operational Process for Goal-Driven Definition of Measures,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 28, no. 12, pp. 1106–1125, Dec. 2002.
[30] B. Ramamurthy and A. Melton, “A Synthesis of Software Science Measures and The Cyclomatic Number,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 1116–1121, Aug. 1988.
[31] E. J. Weyuker, “Evaluating Software Complexity Measures,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 14,
no. 9, pp. 1357–1365, Sept. 1988.
[32] D. M. Berry and W. F. Tichy, “Comments on Formal Methods Application: an Empirical Tale of Software Development,” IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 567–571, June 2003.
[33] G. Lakoff, Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. The University of Chicago, 1987.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top