Programming and Computer Software

, Volume 45, Issue 8, pp 570–580 | Cite as

DOOR: Distributed Object Oriented Software Restructuring Approach Using Neural Network

  • Ahmed KhanEmail author


For the circulated programming frameworks evolvement, Object Oriented (OO) approach is utilized by architects with originators in the point of reference period which results in Distributed Object Oriented (DOO) frameworks. The main aspect of DOO frameworks remains as the equipped scattering of programming classes among different hubs. The essential plan of DOO applications has no top-class circulation, henceforth rebuilding must be finished. The DOO programming rebuilding is done by means of a proposed versatile strategy called Neural Network (NN), to strengthen the exhibition further. At first, Class Dependency Graph (CDG) is developed, in which the hubs speak to the classes, and furthermore the associations between the hubs speak to the conditions between the classes. Presently, the components of articles, strategies, factors, lines, and import connected with the classes in the CDG are extricated and given as contributions to the NN for the preparation procedure. Presently, bunching of the prepared highlights is finished by which the OO framework is sectioned into subsystems with low coupling utilizing Class Dependency Based Clustering (CDBC) strategy. Presently, the grouped classes are amassed into bunch diagrams utilizing K‑Medoid bunching method lastly, the mapping is finished with the made parcels to the fixed accessible machines utilizing Recursive K Means grouping in the focused on circulated design. Reenactment results uncovered that the proposed work yields upgraded results in a useful manner contrasted with the current systems.


  1. 1.
    Wang, J., Ai, J., Yang, Y., and Su, W., Identifying key classes of object-oriented software based on software complex network, Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), Milan, 2017, pp. 444–449.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tarwani, S. and Chug, A., Prioritization of code restructuring for severely affected classes under release time constraints, Proc. 1st IEEE India Int. Conf. on Information Processing (IICIP), Delhi, 2016, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boucher, A. and Badri, M., Predicting fault-prone classes in object-oriented software: an adaptation of an unsupervised hybrid SOM algorithm, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS), Prague, 2017, pp. 306–317.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rajdev, U. and Kaur, A., Automatic detection of bad smells from excel sheets and refactor for performance improvement, Proc. IEEE Int, Conf, on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT), Coimbatore, 2016, vol. 2, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaya, M. and Fawcett, J.W., A new cohesion metric and restructuring technique for object oriented paradigm, Proc. 36th IEEE Annu. Computer Software and Applications Conf. Workshops (COMPSACW), Izmir, 2012, pp. 296–301.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mourad, B., Badri, L., Hachemane, O., and Ouellet, A., Exploring the impact of clone refactoring on test code size in object-oriented software, Proc. 16th IEEE Int. Conf. on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), Sydney, 2017, pp. 586–592.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amirat, A., Bouchouk, A., Yeslem, M.O., and Gasmallah, N., Refactor software architecture using graph transformation approach, Proc. 2nd IEEE Int. Conf. on Innovative Computing Technology (INTECH), Casablanka, 2012, pp. 117–122.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bhatti, M.U., Ducasse, S., and Huchard, M., Reconsidering classes in procedural object-oriented code, Proc. 15th IEEE Working Conf. on Reverse Engineering WCRE’08, Antwerp, 2008, pp. 257–266.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, H., Li, G., Ma, Z.Y., and Shao, W.Z., Conflict-aware schedule of software refactorings, IET Software, 2008, vol. 2, no. 5, pp. 446–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nongpong, K., Feature envy factor: a metric for automatic feature envy detection, Proc. 7th IEEE Int. Conf. on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), Piscataway, NJ: Inst. Electr. Electron. Eng., 2015, pp. 7–12.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tomyim, J. and Pohthong, A., Requirements change management based on object-oriented software engineering with unified modeling language, Proc. 7th IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Service Science (ICSESS), Beijing, 2016, pp. 7–10.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hamad, S.H., Ammar, R.A., Khalifa, M.E., and Fergany, T., Randomized algorithms for mapping clustered object-oriented software onto distributed architectures, Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Signal Processing and Information Technology, ISSPIT, Louisville, 2018, pp. 426–431.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sugandhi, R., Srivastava, P., Srivastav, P., Sanyasi, A., Awasthi, L.M., Parmar, V., Makadia, K., Patel, I., and Shah, S., Implementation of object oriented software engineering on LabVIEW graphical design framework for data acquisition in large volume plasma device, Proc. 7th IEEE Int. Conf. on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering—Confluence-2017, Noida, 2017, pp. 798–803.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faheem, M.T., Ammar, R.A., Sarhan, A.M., and Ragab, H.A.M., A hybrid algorithm for restructuring distributed object-oriented software, Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. on Signal Processing and Information Technology (ISSPIT), Luxor, 2010, pp. 202–208.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cosma, D.C., Reverse engineering object-oriented distributed systems, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Software Maintenance (ICSM), Timișoara, 2010, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gu, A., Zhou, X., Li, Z., Li, Q., and Li, L., Measuring object-oriented class cohesion based on complex networks, Arab. J. Sci. Eng., 2017, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 3551–3561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ajienka, N., Capiluppi, A., and Counsell, S., An empirical study on the interplay between semantic coupling and co-change of software classes, Empirical Software Eng., 2017, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kumar, N., Dadhich, R., and Shastri, A., MAQM: a generic object-oriented framework to build quality models for Web-based applications, Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manage., 2017, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 716–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parashar, A. and Chhabra, J.K., Mining software change data stream to predict changeability of classes of object-oriented software system, Evol. Syst., 2016, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nucci, D.D., Palomba, F., Rosa, G.D., Bavota, G., Oliveto, R., and Lucia A.D., A developer centered bug prediction model, IEEE Trans. Software Eng., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 5–24.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aslam, W. and Ijaz, F., A quantitative framework for task allocation in distributed agile software development, IEEE Access., 2018, vol. 6, pp. 15380–15390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, COMSATS UniversityIslamabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations