Drivers for software refactoring decisions

Subscribe (Full Service)


	Search: The ACM Digital Library The Guide

	Feedback

Drivers for software refactoring decisions

Full text

Pdf (422 KB)

Source

International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering archive
Proceedings of the 2006 ACM/IEEE international symposium on Empirical software engineering table of contents

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

SESSION: Architecture and refactoring table of contents

Pages: 297 - 306

Year of Publication: 2006

ISBN:1-59593-218-6

Authors

Mika V. Mäntylä	Helsinki University of Technology
Casper Lassenius	Helsinki University of Technology

Sponsors

ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGSOFT: ACM Special Interest Group on Software Engineering

Publisher

ACM New York, NY, USA

Bibliometrics

Downloads (6 Weeks): 21, Downloads (12 Months): 94, Citation Count: 1

Additional Information:

abstract references cited by index terms collaborative colleagues

Tools and Actions:	Review this Article Save this Article to a Binder Display Formats: BibTeX EndNote ACM Ref

DOI Bookmark:	Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1159733.1159778 What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an empirical study of drivers for software refactoring decisions. We studied the refactoring decisions made by 37 students evaluating ten methods of a purposefully constructed Java program. The decision rationales reported by the evaluators were coded to identify the drivers behind the decisions. The identified drivers were categorized into Structure, Documentation, Visual Representation, and General drivers. The evaluators had conflicting opinions both regarding the internal quality of the methods and refactoring decisions. Complex code problems were detected only by experienced evaluators. Using regression analysis, we looked at the predictive value of drivers explaining the refactoring decisions. The most salient driver leading to a favourable refactoring decision was method size. This study provides information of the refactoring decisions and helps form a basis for creating code problem detectors. By comparing automatic detection and the identified drivers we gained understanding of code problems that are difficult or impossible to detect automatically, for example Poor Algorithm. Issues detected only by experienced developers, and code problems for which the human eye surpasses automatic detection indicate good areas for developer education.

REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

	1	Arnold,R.S., "Software restructuring," Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 77, no. 4, 1989, pp. 607--617.
	2	William J. Brown , Raphael C. Malveau , Hays W. McCormick, III , Thomas J. Mowbray, AntiPatterns: refactoring software, architectures, and projects in crisis, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1998
	3	Fowler,M., Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code, Boston: Addison-Wesley, 2000.
	4	Marcela Genero , Mario Piattini , Coral Calero, Empirical Validation of Class Diagram Metrics, Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, p.195, October 03-04, 2002
	5	Brian Henderson-Sellers, Object-oriented metrics: measures of complexity, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1995
	6	D. Kafura , G. R. Reddy, The use of software complexity metrics in software maintenance, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.13 n.3, p.335-343, March 1987 [doi>10.1109/TSE.1987.233164]
	7	A Quantitative Evaluation of Maintainability Enhancement by Refactoring, Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'02), p.576, October 03-06, 2002
	8	Lehman,M.M., "On Understanding Laws, Evolution, and Conservation in the Large-Program Life Cycle," The Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 1, 1980, pp. 213--221.
	9	Mäntylä,M.V., "An experiment on subjective evolvability evaluation of object-oriented software: explaining factors and interrater agreement," in International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering, 2005, pp. 277--286.
	10	Mika V. Mäntylä , Casper Lassenius, Subjective evaluation of software evolvability using code smells: An empirical study, Empirical Software Engineering, v.11 n.3, p.395-431, September 2006 [doi>10.1007/s10664-006-9002-8]
	11	Tom Mens , Tom Tourwé, A Survey of Software Refactoring, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.30 n.2, p.126-139, February 2004 [doi>10.1109/TSE.2004.1265817]
	12	Miles,M.B. and Huberman,M.A., Qualitative Data Analysis, Thousand Oaks, California, USA: Sage Publications, 1994.
	13	Moilanen,T. and Roponen,S., Kvalitativiisen aineiston analyysi Atlas.ti-ohjelman avulla, Helsinki, Finland: Kuluttajatutkimuskeskus, 1994.
	14	Paul Oman , Jack Hagemeister, Construction and testing of polynomials predicting software maintainability, Journal of Systems and Software, v.24 n.3, p.251-266, March 1994 [doi>10.1016/0164-1212(94)90067-1]
	15	Carolyn B. Seaman, Qualitative Methods in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, v.25 n.4, p.557-572, July 1999 [doi>10.1109/32.799955]
	16	Ben Shneiderman, Software psychology: Human factors in computer and information systems (Winthrop computer systems series), Winthrop Publishers, 1980
	17	Does The Modern Code Inspection Have Value?, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM'01), p.281, November 07-09, 2001
	18	William C. Wake, Refactoring Workbook, Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 2003
	19	Kurt D. Welker , Paul W. Oman , Gerald G. Atkinson, Development and application of an automated source code maintainability index, Journal of Software Maintenance: Research and Practice, v.9 n.3, p.127-159, May-June 1997 [doi>10.1002/(SICI)1096-908X(199705)9:3<127::AID-SMR149>3.0.CO;2-S]