Reverse engineering methods produce different descriptions of software architectures. In this article we address the task of exploring and comparing these descriptions. We present a novel visualization technique to compare architectures consisting of a decomposition of the software system and the dependencies among the code entities. This technique uses a visual representation of an adjacency matrix to provide a scalable analysis tool. Advanced layout features such as an automatic level of detail algorithm and sorting strategies improve the readability of the visualization. Using a case study, we show how this technique can be applied in practice.
BowmanITHoltRCBrewsterNV.Linux as a case study: its extracted software architecture. In: ICSE ’99: proceedings of the 21st international conference on software engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 22-22 May 1999, pp. 555–563. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
2.
MaqboolOBabriHA.Hierarchical clustering for software architecture recovery. IEEE T Software Eng2007; 33: 759–780.
3.
ZimmermannTDiehlSZellerA. How history justifies system architecture (or not). In: IWPSE ’03: proceedings of the 6th international workshop on principles of software evolution, Helsinki, Finland, 1–2 September 2003, pp. 73-83, Los Alamitos, CA, USA:IEEE Computer Society.
4.
GhanamYCarpendaleS. A survey paper on software architecture visualization. Technical Report 2008-906-19, University of Calgary, Canada.
5.
BeckFDiehlS. Visual comparison of software architectures. In: SoftVis ’10: proceedings of the ACM 2010 symposium on software visualization, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 25-26 October 2010, pp. 183–192. New York, NY, USA: ACM
6.
BeckFDiehlS. Evaluating the impact of software evolution on software clustering. In: WCRE ’10: proceedings of the 17th working conference on reverse engineering, Beverly, MA, USA, 13-16 October 2010, pp. 99–108. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
7.
WenZTzerposV. An effectiveness measure for software clustering algorithms. In: IWPC ’04: proceedings of the 12th international workshop on program comprehension, Bari, Italy, 24-26 June 2004, pp. 194–203. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
8.
ChikofskyEJCrossJH.Reverse engineering and design recovery: a taxonomy. IEEE Software1990; 7: 13–17.
9.
StevensWPMyersGJConstantineLL.Structured design. IBM Syst J1974; 13: 115–139.
10.
GhoniemMFeketeJDCastagliolaP. A comparison of the readability of graphs using node–link and matrix-based representations. In: INFOVIS ’04: IEEE symposium on information visualization, Austin, TX, USA, 10-12 October 2004, pp. 17–24. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
11.
HenryNFeketeJDMcguffinMJ.Nodetrix: a hybrid visualization of social networks. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2007; 13: 1302–1309.
12.
KruskalJBLandwehrJM.Icicle plots: better displays for hierarchical clustering. Am Stat1983; 37: 162–168.
13.
ShneidermanB.The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: VL ’96: proceedings of the 1996 IEEE symposium on visual languages, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 3–6 September 1996. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
14.
RaoRCardSK. The table lens: merging graphical and symbolic representations in an interactive focus + context visualization for tabular information. In: CHI ’94: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA, 24-28 April 1994, pp. 318–322. New York, NY: ACM.
15.
MancoridisSMitchellBSChenY. Bunch: a clustering tool for the recovery and maintenance of software system structures. In: ICSM ’99: proceedings of the IEEE international conference on software maintenance, Oxford, England, UK, 30 August-3 September1999, pp. 50–59. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
16.
MuellerCMartinBLumsdaineA. A comparison of vertex ordering algorithms for large graph visualization. In: APVIS ’07: proceedings of the 6th international Asia-Pacific symposium on visualization, Sydney, Australia, 5-7 February 2007, pp. 141–148. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE
17.
HenryNFeketeJ-D.Matrixexplorer: a dual-representation system to explore social networks. IEEE T Vis Comput Gr2006; 12: 677–684.
18.
MuellerCMartinBLumsdaineA.Interpreting large visual similarity matrices. In: APVIS ’07: proceedings of the 6th international Asia-Pacific symposium on visualization, Sydney, Australia, 5-7 February 2007, pp. 149–152. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE
FernauHKaufmannMPothsM.Comparing trees via crossing minimization. In: RamaswamyRSandeepS8-12NovemberFSTTCS ’05: foundations of software technology and theoretical computer science, vol. 3821 (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany:Springer, 2005, pp. 457–469.
LincolnYGubaE., Naturalistic inquiry. Sage focus editions. SAGE1985: Beverly Hills, CA, USA.
25.
DiehlS.Software visualization: visualizing the structure, behaviour, and evolution of software, 2007. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany:Springer.
26.
StoreyMABestCMichaudJ. SHriMP views: an interactive environment for exploring java programs. In: IWPC ’01: proceedings of the Ninth international conference on program comprehension, Toronto, Canada, 12-13 May 2001, pp. 111–112. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society
27.
BalzerMNoackADeussenO. Software landscapes: visualizing the structure of large software systems. In: VisSym ’04: proceedings of the Joint Eurographics – IEEE TCVG symposium on visualization, Konstanz, Germany, 19-21 May 2004, pp. 261–266, Geneve, Switzerland: Eurographics Association.
28.
DucasseSLanzaM.The class blueprint: visually supporting the understanding of classes. IEEE T Software Eng2005; 31: 75–90.
29.
Van HamF. Using multilevel call matrices in large software projects. In: INFOVIS ’03: proceedings of the IEEE symposium on information visualization, Seattle, WA, USA, 20-21 October 2003, pp. 227–232. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society
30.
BurchMDiehlSWeißgerberP.2005; Visual data mining in software archives. In: SoftVis ’05: proceedings of the 2005 ACM symposium on software visualization, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA, 14-15 May 2005, pp. 37–46. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.
31.
SangalNJordanESinhaV. Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture. In: OOPSLA ’05: proceedings of the 20th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, San Diego, CA, USA, 16-20 October 2005, vol. 40, pp. 167–176. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
32.
ZeckzerD.Visualizing software entities using a matrix layout. In: SOFTVIS ’10: proceedings of the 5th international symposium on software visualization, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 25-26 October 2010, pp. 207–208. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
33.
ShternMTzerposV. A framework for the comparison of nested software decompositions. In: WCRE ’04: proceedings of the 11th working conference on reverse engineering, Delft, the Netherlands, 8-12 November 2004, pp. 284–292. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
34.
MancoridisSMitchellBSRorresC. 1998; Using automatic clustering to produce high-level system organizations of source code. IWPC ’98: Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Program Comprehension. Ischia, Italy, 24-26 June 1998, pp. 45–52. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
35.
KuhnADucasseSGîrbaT.2005; Enriching reverse engineering with semantic clustering. In: WCRE ’05: proceedings of the 12th working conference on reverse engineering, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 7-11 November 2005, pp. 133–142. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
36.
MunznerTGuimbretièreFTasiranS. Treejuxtaposer: scalable tree comparison using focus + context with guaranteed visibility. ACM T Graphic2003; 22: 453–462.
37.
GrahamMKennedyJ.A survey of multiple tree visualisation. Inf Vis2009; 9: 235–252.
38.
WilkinsonLFriendlyM.The history of the cluster heat map. Am Stat2009; 63: 179–184.
39.
MadeiraSCOliveiraAL.Biclustering algorithms for biological data analysis: a survey. IEEE-ACM T Comput Bi2004; 1: 24–45.
40.
ShternMTzerposV. Lossless comparison of nested software decompositions. In: WCRE ’07: proceedings of the 14th working conference on reverse engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 28-31 October 2007, pp. 249–258. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
41.
AndrewsKWohlfahrtMWurzingerG. Visual graph comparison. In: IV ’09: proceedings of the 13th conference on information visualisation, Barcelona, Spain, 15-17 July 2009, pp. 62–67. Los Alamitos, CA, USA: IEEE Computer Society.
42.
PohlMBirkeP. Interactive exploration of large dynamic networks. In: VISUAL ’08: proceedings of the 10th international conference on visual information systems, Salerno, Italy, 11-12 September 2008, pp. 56–67. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
43.
GlorieMZaidmanAVan DeursenA. Splitting a large software repository for easing future software evolution – an industrial experience report. J Softw Maint and Evol-R2009; 21: 113–141.
