Towards Facilitating Development of SOA Application with Design Metrics

  • Wei Zhao
  • Ying Liu
  • Jun Zhu
  • Hui Su
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4294)


Applications based on service-oriented architecture (SOA) are intended to be built with both high cohesion and low coupling. The loosely coupled services bring forth the lower costs of development and maintenance as well as the higher reusability and extensibility. To implement each SOA application with such intention, designs play an important role for the success of the whole project. The services and the relationships among them represented in a design are two critical factors to decide the quality of an SOA application in terms of modularity. At the mean while, they are valuable indicators for guiding the following development and maintenance phases to progress in a cost-effective way. In this paper, we present that measurement of designs for SOA applications can objectively judge the quality and further facilitate the development and maintenance of SOA applications through employing two specific metrics. We also performed an experimental study on an ongoing SOA project. In this study, we applied these two metrics to the design of this project to acquire judgments and make estimations. The data in CVS were retrieved to reflect the genuine project situations. The analysis on these data shows that adopting the measurement in the early stage of SOA projects may avoid wasting efforts and delaying schedule as well as acquire a deep grasp and an effective control on the issues in the following phases.


SOA modular design service design measurement metrics 


  1. 1.
    Bohmann, T., Loser, K.U.: Towards a service agility assessment - Modeling the composition and coupling of modular business services. In: Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Conference on E-Commerce Technology Workshops, pp. 140–148 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brocke, J., Lindner, M.A.: Service portfolio measurement: a framework for evaluating the financial consequences of out-tasking decisions. In: Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing, November 15-19, pp. 203–211 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacCormack, A., Rusnak, J., Baldwin, C.: Exploring the structure of complex software designs: an empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Harvard Business School Working Paper, Number 05-016 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwanke, R.W.: An intelligent tool for re-engineering software modularity. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Software Engineering, pp. 83–92. IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Park, R.E., Goethert, W.B., Florac, W.A.: Goal-driven software measurement – a guidebook (CMU/SEI-96-HB-002, ADA313946), Pittsburgh, PA, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University (1996),
  6. 6.
    Steward, D.V.: The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 28, 71–74 (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Parnas, D.: On the criteria to be used in decomposing system into modules. Communications of the ACM 15(12), 1053–1058 (1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rifkin, S., Cox, C.: Measurement in practice. Technical report of CMU SEI, TR16.91 (July 1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wei Zhao
    • 1
  • Ying Liu
    • 1
  • Jun Zhu
    • 1
  • Hui Su
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM China Research LabBeijingP.R. China

Personalised recommendations