Quantifying COTS Component Functional Adaptation

  • Alejandra Cechich
  • Mario Piattini
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3107)


For successful COTS component selection and integration, composers increasingly look at software measurement techniques. However, determining the complexity of a component’s adapter is still an ongoing concern. Here, a suite of measures is presented to address this problem within a COTS-based software measurement activity. Our measures are based on a formally defined component-based model, aiming at expressing and measuring some aspects of component adaptations.


Component-based system assessment COTS components Software Quality Metrics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abts, C.: COTS-Based Systems (CBS) Functional density - A Heuristic for Better CBS Design. In: Dean, J., Gravel, A. (eds.) ICCBSS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2255, pp. 1–9. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander, R., Blackburn, M.: Component Assessment Using Specification- Based Analysis and Testing. Technical Report SPC-98095-CMC, Software Productivity Consortium (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ballurio, K., Scalzo, B., Rose, L.: Risk Reduction in COTS Software Selection with BASIS. In: Dean, J., Gravel, A. (eds.) ICCBSS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2255, pp. 31–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cechich, A., Piattini, M.: On the measurement of COTS functional suitability. In: Kazman, R., Port, D. (eds.) ICCBSS 2004. LNCS, vol. 2959, pp. 31–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., Subramanian, N.: Process-Oriented Metrics for Software Architecture Adaptability. In: Proceedings of the Fifth IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering (RE 2001), pp. 310–312 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deline, R.: A Catalog of Techniques for Resolving Packaging Mismatch. In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Software Reusability, Los Angeles, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gacek, C.: Detecting Architectural Mismatches During System Composition. Technical Report USC/CSE-97-TR-506, University of Southern California (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holmes, L.: Evaluating COTS Using Function Fit Analysis. Q/P Management Group, INC,
  10. 10.
    Jilani, L., Desharnais, J.: Defining and Applying Measures of Distance Between Specifications. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 27(8), 673–703 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nick, M., Feldmann, R.: Guidelines for Evaluation and Improvement of Reuse and Experience Repository Systems Through Measurement Programs. In: Proceedings of the Third European Software Measurement Conference (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Selby, R.: Quantitative Studies of Software Reuse. In: Biggerstaff, T., Perlis, A. (eds.) Software Reusability Vol II Applications and Experiences, Addison Wesley, Reading (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaw, M., Garlan, D.: Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alejandra Cechich
    • 1
  • Mario Piattini
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Ciencias de la ComputaciónUniversidad Nacional del ComahueNeuquénArgentina
  2. 2.Grupo Alarcos, Escuela Superior de InformáticaUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaCiudad RealEspaña

Personalised recommendations