/[cvs]/02/assignment2.tex
ViewVC logotype

Diff of /02/assignment2.tex

Parent Directory Parent Directory | Revision Log Revision Log | View Patch Patch

revision 1.6 by jontas, Fri Dec 12 13:47:14 2003 UTC revision 1.10 by eax, Sat Dec 13 20:15:57 2003 UTC
# Line 142  Line 142 
142      %vi skall använda templaten, och bifoga denna...      %vi skall använda templaten, och bifoga denna...
143      \subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the      \subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 1 using the
144      chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture}      chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture}
145          svar          See appendix b.
146      \subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the      \subsection{Measure the use case specifications shown in Design 2 using the
147      chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture}      chosen use case metrics suite from the lecture}
148          svar          See appendix c.
149      \subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following      \subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following
150      questions:}      questions:}
151          \subsubsection{Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be          \begin{itemize}
152               more complex and why?}              \item Which of the two systems presented can be expected to be
153                  svar              more complex and why?
154          \subsubsection{Which of the two systems can be expected to require more              \item Which of the two systems can be expected to require more
155              effort to be built? Why?}              effort to be built? Why?
156                  svar          \end{itemize}
157                We expect design 2 to become more complex, both since
158                it has more use cases, but also since it has higher
159                values (in general) on the metrics suit.
160    
161                We expect design 2 to require more effort to build
162                since it has more use cases and more actions (more
163                functionality). Also since we feel that design 2 has a
164                higher complexity. Also most of the values that we can
165                get out from our metrics suit are greater, both in
166                total and if we count them per use case.
167    
168                We feel that it is hard to make good (accurate)
169                estimations based on this suit only and we also feel
170                that while good estimations on use case level can be
171                made using this suit, it is not a good thing to try to
172                make estimations of the system as a whole only based
173                on this information.
174    \\ \\ \textbf{Measuring designs}    \\ \\ \textbf{Measuring designs}
175    \subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the    \subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 1 using the CK metrics suite presented on the
176      lecture.}      lecture.}
177            svar            See appendix b.
178      \subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using      \subsection{Measure the class diagram presented in Design 2 using
179      the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.}      the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.}
180            svar            See appendix c.
181      \subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite      \subsection{Measure the code in the files .java from Design 1 with the CK metrics suite
182      presented on the lecture.}      presented on the lecture.}
183            svar            See appendix b.
184      \subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java      \subsection{ Measure the code in the files .java
185      from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.}      from Design 2 with the CK metrics suite presented on the lecture.}
186            svar            See appendix c.
187      \subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following      \subsection{Write a short section (up to ½ page) with answers to the following
188      questions:}      questions:}
189          \subsubsection{Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class          \subsubsection{Which of the metrics could not be computed based on the class diagrams? Why?}
190          diagrams? Why?}                The LCOM (Lack of Cohesion in Methods) metric could
191              svar                not be computed from the class diagram because LCOM metrics
192                  are gathered through counting the number of
193                  method-pairs that have no attributes in common and
194                  then subtract the number of pairs that do have
195                  common attributes. This can not be seen when looking
196                  at the class diagram so you have to look at the
197                  code to compute it. It would probably be quite handy
198                  with a tool that computes this metric automatically
199                  since it is very time consuming to do by hand.
200          \subsubsection{Which of the two systems is more complex? Why?}          \subsubsection{Which of the two systems is more complex? Why?}
201              svar                Since Design2 has a lower total LCOM value (140 vs
202                  93) it is therefore considered more complex.
203                  We draw this conclusion from the lecture and slides about CK metrics, a class
204                  with low cohesion is ''hard to comprehend, hard to
205                  reuse, hard to maintain and constantly effected by
206                  change´´
207          \subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source          \subsubsection{Which method of gathering metrics - from UML designs or source
208          code - is less time consuming?}          code - is less time consuming?}
209              svar            You get a much better overview of the system when
210              looking at the UML design and it is much less
211              time consuming than searching through source code after source code to
212              find inheritance, number of children and so on. Some
213              metrics require going through source code though, so you
214              can not get everything from the UML designs, although it
215              would have been handy if it was possible.
216    \section{External product attributes}    \section{External product attributes}
217      \subsection{Describe how the external product attributes differ from the      \subsection{Describe how the external product attributes differ from the
218      internal ones. Describe the connection between external and      internal ones. Describe the connection between external and
Legend:
Removed from v.1.6  
changed lines
  Added in v.1.10
root@recompile.se
 ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.26