Comments on ‘A cohesion measure for object‐oriented classes’ by Heung Seok Chae, Yong Rae Kwon and Doo Hwan Bae (<i>Softw. Pract. Exper.</i> 2000; <b>30</b>:1405–1431)

SUMMARYClass cohesion metrics apply different approaches to quantify the relatedness of the attributes and methods in a class. These relations can be direct or transitive. Method invocations are among the key sources of potential transitive attribute–method relations. That is, a method is not only related to the attributes that it references, but it may also be transitively related to the attributes referenced by the methods that it invokes. A few of the existing class cohesion metrics capture this potential transitive cohesion aspect. In this paper, we classify the method invocations as direct or transitive. The definitions of the class representative models used by 16 existing low‐level design (LLD) metrics are extended to incorporate the cohesion caused by the two types of method invocations. The impact of incorporating the transitive relations because of the two types of method invocations on the cohesion values and on the ability of the LLD metrics to predict faulty classes are studied empirically. The results show that the transitive relations because of both types of method invocations featured a considerable degree of cohesion that is not captured by most of the existing LLD metrics. However, practically, incorporating transitive relations in cohesion measurement was found to be ineffective in improving the fault‐prediction powers of most of the LLD metrics. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Incorporating transitive relations in low‐level design‐based class cohesion measurement

Dallal

2012

More comments on ‘A cohesion measure for object‐oriented classes’ by Heung‐Seok Chae, Yong‐Rae Kwon and Doo‐Hwan Bae (Softw. Pract. Exper. 2000; 30:1405–1431)

Zhou

2003

Chae et al. believe that the improved CBMC measures class cohesion from the viewpoint of the usage criteria of instance variables and that it cannot allow meaningful interpretations about classes. This paper exemplifies that it characterizes the interaction patterns better than the original one does and that it could also be used as a guideline for quality evaluation so as to enable the restructuring of poorly designed classes. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Response to ‘More comments on: A cohesion measure for object‐oriented classes’

ChaeHeung-Seok¹,

KwonYong-Rae²,

BaeDoo-Hwan³

2003

SUMMARYThe authors insist that monotonicity is a necessary property of a good cohesion metric and the violation of the monotonicity property limits the application of CBMC. They also state that the augmented CBMC can also be used as a guideline for quality evaluation and restructuring of poorly designed classes. This paper raises the question about the necessity of monotonicity by analyzing the reason that causes CBMC to violate the monotonicity property. In addition, we give a detailed description of the restructuring procedure based on CBMC.