Discovering Reusable Functional Features in Legacy Object-Oriented Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typical object-oriented (OO) systems implement several functional features that are interwoven into class hierarchies. In the absence of aspect-oriented techniques to develop and compose these features, developers resort to object-oriented design and programming idioms to separate features as well as possible. Given a legacy OO system, discovering existing functional features helps understand the design of the system and extract these features to ease their maintenance and reuse. We want to discover candidate functional features in OO systems. We first define functional features and then discuss the footprints that such features are likely to leave in an OO system. We identify three such footprints: (1) multiple inheritance, (2) delegation, and (3) ad-hoc. We develop a set of algorithms for identifying such footprints in OO code and implemented them for the Java language using Eclipse JDT. In this article, we present the algorithms, and the results of applying the corresponding tools on five open-source systems: FreeMind, JavaWebMail, JHotDraw, JReversePro, and Lucene. Our experimental results show that: (1) the different algorithms can identify interesting and useful candidate functional features in OO systems, (2) they can identify opportunities for refactoring, and (3) they are complementary and could help developers.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".