Search

The overriding goal of software engineering is to provide a high quality system, application or a product. To achieve this goal, software engineers must apply effective methods coupled with modern tools within the context of a mature software process [2]. In addition, it is also must to assure that high quality is realized. Although many quality measures can be collected at the project levels, the important measures are errors and defects. Deriving a quality measure for reusable components has proven to be challenging task now a days. The results obtained from the study are based on the empirical evidence of reuse practices, as emerged from the analysis of industrial projects. Both large and small companies, working in a variety of business domains, and using object-oriented and procedural development approaches contributed towards this study. This paper proposes a quality metric that provides benefit at both project and process level, namely defect removal efficiency (DRE)., {"references":["Kimberly Jordan, MJY Team, George Mason University, \"Software\nReuse Term Paper For The MJY Team\", Software Risk Management\nWWW SITE, Apr.1997.","Roger S Pressman, Software Engineering-A practitioner-s\napproach, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill, 2001.","V. Basili, L. Briand, and W. Melo., \"Measuring the impact of reuse on\nquality and productivity in object-oriented systems.\" Technical Report\nCS- TR-3395, University of Maryland, Computer Science Department,\n1995.","Barnes, B. H., Bollinger, T. B., \"Making Reuse Cost-Effective,\" IEEE\nSoftware, Vol. 8, Number 1, January 1991, pp. 642-652.","J. E. Gaffney, Jr., R. D. Cruickshank, \"A general economics model of\nsoftware reuse\", Proceedings of the 14th international conference on\nSoftware engineering, Melbourne, Australia, May 11-15, 1992, pp.327-\n337.","Fonash P., \" Metrics For Reusable Software Code Components\", PhD\nDissertation, George mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 1993.","Parastoo Mohagheghi, Reidar Conradi, Ole M. Killi, Henrik Schwarz,\n\"An Empirical Study of Software Reuse vs. Defect- Density and\nStability\", Simula Research Laboratory, P.O.Box 134, NO-1325\nLysaker, Norway.","Lubars MD, Affording Higher Reliability Through Software Reusability,\nSoftware Eng. Notes, Oct. 1986.","Fenton, N.E., Ohlsson, N., \"Quantitative Analysis of Faults and\nFailures in a Complex Software System\", IEEE Trans. Software\nEngineering, 26(8), 2000, pp. 797-814.\n[10] Malaiya, K.Y., Denton, J., \"Module Size Distribution and Defect\nDensity\", Proc. 11th International Symposium on Software Reliability\nEngineering- ISSRE-00, 2000, pp. 62-71.\n[11] Fonash P., \"Metrics For Reusable Software Code Components\", PhD\nDissertation, George mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, 1993.\n[12] Sherriff, M., Nagappan, N., Williams, L., and Vouk, M. A., \"Early\nEstimation of Defect Density Using an In-Process Haskell Metrics\nModel,\" First International Workshop on Advances in Model-Based\nSoftware Testing, St. Louis, MO, May 15-21, 2005."]}

Component-Based software engineering provides an opportunity for better quality and increased productivity in software development by using reusable software components [10]. One of the most critical aspects of the quality of a software system is its performance. The systematic application of software performance engineering techniques throughout the development process can help to identify design alternatives that preserve desirable qualities such as extensibility and reusability while meeting performance objectives [1]. In the present scenario, software engineering methodologies strongly focus on the functionality of the system, while applying a "fix- it-later" approach to software performance aspects [3]. As a result, lengthy fine-tunings, expensive extra hard ware, or even redesigns are necessary for the system to meet the performance requirements. In this paper, we propose design based, implementation independent, performance prediction approach to reduce the overhead associated in the later phases while developing a performance guaranteed software product with the help of Unified Modeling Language (UML)., {"references":["Mangano, \"An Approach to Performance Evaluation of Software\nArchitectures\", Workshop on Software and Performance, Santa Fe, NM,\nACM, 1998, pp. 178-190.","B. W. Boehm, \"Verifying and Validating Software Requirements and\nDesign Specifications,\" IEEE Software, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 75-88, 1984.","Tom Verdict, Bart Dhoedt, Frank Gielen, and Piet Demeester, Senior\nmember, IEEE, \" automatic Inclusion Of Middleware Performance\nAttributes into Architectural UML Software Models\", IEEE Trans. On\nSoft.Engg. VOL 31,no.8, August 2005.","D.E. Harms and B.W. Weide, \"Copying and Swapping: Influences on\nthe Design of Reusable Software Components\", IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng.\n17, 5 (1991), 424-43s.","Yan liu, Member, IEEE, Alan Fekete, Member IEEE Computer Society,\nand Ian Gorton, Member, IEEE, \"Design-Level Performance prediction\nof Component-Based Applications\", IEEE Trans. On Soft.Engg. VOL\n31,no.11, November 2005.","G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson, The Unified Modeling\nLanguage, User Guide, Reading, MA, Addison Wesley, 1999.","V.Cortelessa, A, D-Ambrogio, and G.Iazolla, \"Automatic Derivation of\nsoftware performance models from case Documents\", performance\nevaluation, vol.45, no.s 2-3,pp.81-105, July 2001.","P.G. Gu and D.C. Petriu, \"XSLT transformation from UML Model to\nLQN performance models\", proc. Third Int-l workshop Software\nperformance (WOSP ÔÇÿ2002), pp.227-234.July 2002.","R. Kazman, et al., \"Scenario-Based Analysis of Software Architecture\",\nIEEE Software, vol. 13, no. 6, 1996, pp.47-55.\n[10] X.Wu and M. Woodside, \"Performance Modeling from Software\ncomponents\", proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on\nSoftware and Performance, pp.290-301, 2004.\n[11] Balsamo and Mangano 1998] S. Balsamo, P. Inverardi, and C. Mangano,\n\"An Approach to Performance Evaluation of Software Architectures\",\nWorkshop on Software and Performance, Santa Fe, NM, ACM, 1998,\npp. 178-190.\n[12] C. U. Smith, Performance Engineering of Software Systems, Reading,\nMA, Addison-Wesley, 1990.\n[13] Sitaraman M., et al., \"Performance specification of software\ncomponents\", Proc. of SSR '01, p. 310. ACM/SIGSOFT, May 2001.\n[14] Connie U. Smith and Lloyd G. Williams, Responsive, Scalable Systems:\nPractical Performance Engineering for Object-Oriented Software, 2001.\n[15] Cortellessa, V., Mirandola, R. PRIMA-UML: a Performance Validation\nIncremental Methodology on Early UML Diagrams, Science of\nComputer Programming, 44 (2002), 101-129, July 2002, Elsevier\nScience.\n[16] Lavenberg S.S. Computer Performance Modeling Handbook, Academic\nPress, New York, 1983.\n[17] UML Profile for Schedulability, Performance, and Time Specification:\nttp://cgi.omg.org/docs/ptc/02-03-02.pdf.\n[18] UML Documentation version 1.4 Web site. Online\nhttp://www.rational.com/uml/resources/documentation/.\n[19] Crnkovic, I. and Larsson, M. \"A Case Study: Demands on Componentbased\nDevelopment\", Proceedings 22nd International Conference on\nSoftware Engineering, ACM Press, 2000."]}