Many software patterns are available nowadays. They allow the reuse of proved solutions in various areas of software engineering, but are expressed in different formalisms. This diversity is detrimental for patterns reuse, since it is difficult to compare and compose heterogeneous patterns (patterns expressed in different formalisms). Moreover, patterns composition is based on inter-patterns relationships, that are difficult to discern if they are not explicit. Thus, an automatic method that extract non explicit relations between patterns even if those latter are heterogeneous, becomes a necessity. In this context, we improve an existing method of automatic inter-patterns relations analysis. As many patterns lack of resulting context, our aim is to enable that method to extract relations on this kind of patterns.
Nowadays, the WWW supplies an increasing amount of knowledge covering diverse domains. Among others, it supplies a large number of software patterns that are a formidable tool allowing the reuse of proved solutions, in various areas of software engineering. A software pattern presents an issue to a recurrent problem, by offering a proven solution. Software patterns need to be composed, in order to solve complex problems that are not dealt by a single pattern. Inter-patterns relationships are on the basis of the patterns composition. However, it is difficult to discern these relations if they are not explicit in each pattern. Moreover, even if those relations are explicit, they are limited to intra-catalog relationships.
Indeed, a pattern is expressed through a pattern formalism, which is a syntactic structure of the pattern content. The majority of pattern formalisms in the literature differ in the number and degree of detail of their items. So, it is difficult to interpret and compare heterogeneous patterns. It is also difficult to compose them into larger solutions; a fact which is detrimental for patterns reuse.
This paper presents our approach that improves an existing method of automatic inter-patterns relations analysis. This method is the first automatic approach which handles relations between heterogeneous patterns, cross different catalogs. The aim of our improvement is to enable that method to handle more patterns formalisms; specially, those formalisms lacking of resulting context. So, works related to interpatterns relationships extraction are described in section 2. Our approach for automatic relations analysis on patterns lacking of resulting context is presented in section 3. Finally, we conclude this paper and give some research perspectives in section 4.
Many researcher were interested in defining inter-patterns relationships, like [
Our approach towards an automatic way to analyze relations between patterns is
based on Kubo et al. method, that we propose to improve in terms of the pattern forms
handled. As many patterns do not express the Resulting Context explicitly (like those
in [
Resulting Context is the result or product generated by the pattern application. So,
each pattern has its resulting context either explicit in a dedicated section, or
implicitly given in the Solution section. Here is an example of a resulting context expressed
within the Solution : The pattern Declare Before First Use [
Our idea is to overcome the absence of a dedicated section for Resulting Context
by using the Solution section, so that one be able to represent the third element of the
pattern model (Resulting Context). A such use of the Solution does not alter the
significance of the relationships that we are interested in (Starting-Starting [
For example, let’s consider the pattern Navigation Tabs [
Table 1. Results of comparisons between patterns elements
Since we obtain the similarity and inclusion results, we calculate the value of
each relation between P1 and P2, using the definition of each relation (Uses
[
Table 2. Results of relations analysis
0,934 0,136 0,135 Finally, as in Kubo et al. method, the strongest relation of the eight types (P1 Uses P2, P1 Refines P2, P2 Uses P1, P2 Refines P1, Same, ResultingStarting (P1 then P2), Resulting-Starting (P2 then P1), Starting-Starting) is assumed as the representative relationship. So we conclude in this case that the patterns P1 and P2 are Same. 0,156 0,248 0 Finally, considering the strongest relationship, we conclude that P1 and P2 are related via the relationship Resulting-Starting. Finally, considering the strongest relationship, we conclude that the pattern P1 Uses the pattern P2.
Our way of looking at the analysis of relations between patterns is based on Kubo et al method. We improved this method to enable it dealing with patterns which do not give their Resulting Contexts in an explicit manner. Our idea consisted of using the Solution section. As we have explained earlier, a such use does not alter the significance of the different relations treated. Some other improvements can be addressed to face the drawbacks inherent to Kubo et al. method, and to offer more benefits for patterns composition. Such as : The block HTML Analysis of the method is limited to the treatment of patterns expressed in HTML. This block can be extended to deal with patterns expressed in other ways. The method can be improved to treat patterns lacking of Starting Context and/or Forces, which are two necessary elements to represent patterns in the model of Kubo et al. The method can be extended to offer the functionality of Patterns Retrieval, which provides to a user having a particular problem, all available patterns that treat this problem.