1. Evaluating C++ Design Pattern Miner Tools Lajos Jenő Fülöp 1, Tamás Gyovai 2 and Rudolf Ferenc 1 1 Department of Software Engineering University of Szeged, Hungary 2 evosoft Hungary Ltd.

2. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 2 27th-29th September 2006 Motivation There are many design pattern miner tools They differ in several aspects  Pattern descriptions  Target software representation  Matching algorithm They should be evaluated and compared  We performed experiments on 4 real life open- source systems

3. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 3 27th-29th September 2006 Evaluated tools Maisa  Measures software quality at design level  University of Helsinki CrocoPat  Relational computation  Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland  University of California at Berkeley, USA  Brandenburg University of Technology at Cottbus, Germany Columbus  Framework for source code analysis and quality assurance  FrontEndART Ltd.  University of Szeged  Nokia Research Center

4. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 4 27th-29th September 2006 Evaluation framework We search for pattern instances in the source code Each tool has its own  pattern description language and  representation of the facts extracted from the source code Columbus provides the same data for the tools

5. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 5 27th-29th September 2006 Analyzed projects Four open source systems from different domains

6. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 6 27th-29th September 2006 Experiments Three main aspects  Number of design pattern instances found  Pattern mining speed  Memory requirements

7. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 7 27th-29th September 2006 Number of pattern instances found (Mozilla)

8. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 8 27th-29th September 2006 Speed (Mozilla)

9. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 9 27th-29th September 2006 Memory requirements (in megabytes)

10. University of Szeged – Software Engineering Department Sixth IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and Manipulation (SCAM 2006) 10 27th-29th September 2006 Summary Differences were caused by  Different descriptions of design patterns  Precision of pattern descriptions  Differences in algorithms To do …  „Strict” design pattern catalog  Evaluation benchmark More test systems  Involving further tools