A Hybrid Approach for Improving the Design Quality of Web Service Interfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key success of a Web service is to appropriately design its interface to make it easy to consume and understand. In the context of service-oriented computing (SOC), the service’s interface is the main source of interaction with the consumers to reuse the service functionality in real-world applications. The SOC paradigm provides a collection of principles and guidelines to properly design services to provide best practice of third-party reuse. However, recent studies showed that service designers tend to pay little care to the design of their service interfaces, which often lead to several side effects known as antipatterns . One of the most common Web service interface antipatterns is to expose a large number of semantically unrelated operations, implementing different abstractions, in one single interface. Such bad design practices may have a significant impact on the service reusability, understandability, as well as the development and run-time characteristics. To address this problem, in this article, we propose a hybrid approach to improve the design quality of Web service interfaces and fix antipatterns as a combination of both deterministic and heuristic-based approaches. The first step consists of a deterministic approach using a graph partitioning-based technique to split the operations of a large service interface into more cohesive interfaces, each one representing a distinct abstraction. Then, the produced interfaces will be checked using a heuristic-based approach based on the non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm (NSGA-II) to correct potential antipatterns while reducing the interface design deviation to avoid taking the service away from its original design. To evaluate our approach, we conduct an empirical study on a benchmark of 26 real-world Web services provided by Amazon and Yahoo. Our experiments consist of a quantitative evaluation based on design quality metrics, as well as a qualitative evaluation with developers to assess its usefulness in practice. The results show that our approach significantly outperforms existing approaches and provides more meaningful results from a developer’s perspective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".