Models, Methods and Tools for Effectiveness Estimation of Post Object-Oriented Technologies in Software Maintenance

  • Mykola TkachukEmail author
  • Konstiantyn Nagornyi
  • Rustam Gamzayev
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 594)


An intelligent framework for effectiveness estimation of post object-oriented technologies (POOT) is proposed, which is based on structuring and analyzing of domain-specific knowledge about such interconnected and complex data resources within a software maintenance process as: (1) structural complexity of legacy software systems; (2) dynamic behavior of user requirements; (3) architecture-centered implementation issues by usage of different POOT. These 3 components are formalized and combined in form of the algorithmic model, and the final estimation values of POOT effectiveness are defined using fuzzy logic method and CASE-tools elaborated, which were tested successfully at the maintenance case-study of real-life software application.


Post object-oriented technology Effectiveness Crosscutting functionality Knowledge-based approach Algorithmic model Metrics Fuzzy logic CASE-tool 


  1. 1.
    Sommerville, I.: Software Engineering. Addison Wesley, Boston (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eilam, E.: Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering. Wiley Publishing, Indianapolis (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Apel, S. et al.: On the structure of crosscutting concerns: using aspects of collaboration? In: Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Product Line Engineering (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Przyby3ek, A.: Post object-oriented paradigms in software development: a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the International Multi-conference on Computer Science and Information Technology, pp. 1009–1020 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Official Web-site of Aspect-oriented Software Development community.
  6. 6.
    Official Web-site of Feature-oriented Software Development community.
  7. 7.
    Official Web-site of Context-oriented Software Development group.
  8. 8.
    Highsmith, J.: Agile Project Management. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gamma, E., et al.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Addison-Wesley, Reading (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sheldon, T., Jerath, K., Chung, H.: Metrics for maintainability of class inheritance hierarchies. J. Softw. Maintenance Evol. 14, 1–14 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harrison, R., Counsell, S.J.: The role of inheritance in the maintainability of object-oriented systems. In: Proceedings of ESCOM 1998, pp. 449–457 (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aversano, L., Cerulo, L., Di Penta, M.: Relating the evolution of design patterns and crosscutting concerns. In: Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Working Conference on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation, pp. 180–192 (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hannemann, J., Kiczales, G.: Design pattern implementation in java and aspectJ. In: Proceedings of OOPSLA 2002, pp. 161–173 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Eaddy, M., et al.: Identifying, assigning, and quantifying crosscutting concerns. In: Workshop on Assessment of Contemporary Modularization Techniques (ACoMT 2007), Minneapolis, USA, pp. 212–217 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Filman, R., Elrad, S., Aksit, M.: Aspect-Oriented Software Development. Addison Wesley Professional, Reading (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Figueiredo, E.: Concern-Oriented Heuristic Assessment of Design Stability. Ph.D. thesis, Lancaster University (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Clarket, S., et al.: Separating concerns throughout the development lifecycle. In: International Workshop on Aspect-Oriented Programming ECOOP (1999)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Apel, S.: The role of features and aspects in software development. Ph.D. thesis, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tkachuk, M., Nagornyi, K.: Towards effectiveness estimation of post object-oriented technologies in software maintenance. J. Prob. Program. 2-3(special issue), 252–260 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taromirad M., Paige, M.: Agile requirements traceability using domain-specific modeling languages. In: Extreme Modeling Workshop, pp. 45–50 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eaddy, M., et al.: Do crosscutting concerns cause defects? IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 34(4), 497–515 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aversano, L., et al.: Relationship between design patterns defects and crosscutting concern scattering degree. IET Softw. 3(5), 395–409 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walker, R., Rawal, S., Sillito, J.: Do crosscutting concerns cause modularity problems? In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (SIGSOFT/FSE 2012), pp. 1–11 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gottardi, T., et al.: Model-based reuse for crosscutting frameworks: assessing reuse and maintenance effort. J. Softw. Eng. Res. Dev. 1, 1–34 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tarr, P.L., et al.: N degrees of separation: multi-dimensional separation of concerns. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 107–119. ACM, Los Angeles (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Official Web-site of System Thinking World community.
  28. 28.
    Ramesh, K., Karunanidhi, P.: Literature survey on algorithmic and non-algorithmic models for software development effort estimation. Int. J. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2(3), 623–632 (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tkachuk, M., Martinkus, I.: Model and tools for multi-dimensional approach to requirements behavior analysis. In: Kop, C. (ed.) UNISON 2012. LNBIP, vol. 137, pp. 191–198. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh (2000)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garlan, D., Monroe, R., Wile, D.: ACME: an architecture description interchange language. In: Proceedings of CASCON 1997, Toronto, Canada, pp. 169–183 (1997)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy Sets. WorldSciBook (1976)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Official Web-site of IDEF Family of Methods.
  35. 35.
    Nagornyi, K.: Elaboration and usage of method for post object-oriented technologies effectiveness’s assessment. J. East-Eur. Adv. Technol. 63, 21–25 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mykola Tkachuk
    • 1
    Email author
  • Konstiantyn Nagornyi
    • 1
  • Rustam Gamzayev
    • 1
  1. 1.National Technical University “Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute”KharkivUkraine

Personalised recommendations