JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.

ORG

30

Reusability metrics - An Evolution based Study on Object Oriented System, Component based System and Service Oriented System
G. Shanmugasundaram, V. Prasanna Venkatesan and C. Punitha Devi
Abstract Reusability is the key paradigm for increasing software quality in the software development. Reusability was the core concept of object oriented systems which there on evolved into component based systems and service oriented systems. The aim of this paper is to study the reuse metrics of these three systems and to propose a model to bring out the relationship. A template has been designed to study and record how the metrics are categorised and it forms the base for the evolution based model. The outcome of the study was brought out by an evolutionary based model which states the maturity level of reuse metrics and identifies the gaps to measure complete reusability for service oriented systems. Index Terms Reusability Metrics, Software Metrics, OO Metrics, Component Metrics, Service Metrics and Reusability Model.

1 INTRODUCTION

HE demand for new software applications is currently increasing at an exponential rate, as is the cost to develop them [1]. This leads to a need for increase number of qualified and experienced software professionals - a software crisis [2]. Reusability was the key paradigm which gave a solution to the aforementioned software crisis. The ability to reuse relies in an essential way on the ability to build larger things from smaller parts, and being able to identify commonalities among those parts [3]. Reusability is often a required characteristic of platform software and implies some explicit management of build, packaging, distribution, installation, configuration, deployment, and maintenance and upgrade issues. Reusability has been considered as a main objective in object oriented systems; component based and service oriented systems. Hence these three systems have been adopted for study in order to measure reusability. The paper is organised as, section 2 describes the background work which states the reuse metrics of the three systems considered, section 3 states the objective of the study, Section 3 describe the proposed work - evolution based model, section 4 gives the outcome of the proposed work, and then the conclusion gives the summary of the paper.

2 BACKGROUND WORK
Various efforts were put in building metrics and models for software reuse and reusability are seen from [4, 8, 14, 16, 24, and 27]. Software metrics are intended to measure software quality characteristics quantitatively. Among several quality characteristics, the reusability is particularly important when reusing components. Reusability can measure the degree of features that are reused in building applications. This section gives the reusable metrics of the three systems contributed by different authors.

2.1 Object Oriented Reuse Metrics Object oriented reuse metrics focus on the object structure, which reflects on each individual entity such as methods and classes and on the external attributes that measures the interaction among entities such as coupling & inheritance. These features of object oriented systems could be measured with the help of quality factors such as complexity, understandability, testability, portability. To measure these quality factors several metrics for Object oriented Software as proposed by different authors is (some of the metrics are related to other quality attributes like maintainability, testability but it have relation with reusability) listed in the table 1.
TABLE 1 REUSABILITY METRICS OF OOS
S.No. 1. Reusability Metrics Metric Name Description Weighted Method Number of per Class (WMC) methods within the classes Contributors Chidamber and Kemerer [1994] [4]

G. shanmugasundaram is with the Department of Banking Technolgy, Pondicherry University, Puducherry - 605004. Dr. V. Prasanna Venaktesan is with the Department of BankingTechnology,Pondicherry University,Puducherry - 605004. C. Punitha Devi is with the Department of Computer Science, Pondicherry University,Puducherry - 605004.

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

31

Depth of Inheritance Tree (DIT)

Number of Children (NOC) Response for a Class (RFC)

Lack of Cohesion in Methods (LCOM)

Coupling between objects (CBO)

Maximum inheritance path from the class to the root class Number of immediate subclasses of a class Set of methods that can potentially be executed in response to a message received by an object of that class Difference between the number of methods whose similarity is zero and the number of methods whose similarity is not zero Number of classes to which a class is coupled Measure coupling through abstract data types Number of messages sent out from a class Number of Local methods Number of lines of code relative number of pairs of methods directly connected number of methods in a class

tiveness) and eleven design properties [11]. All these are measurable directly from class diagrams, and applicable to UML class diagrams.

2.2 Component Based Reuse Metrics A reusable component can be seen as a box, which contains the code and the documentation. There are a number of components available; it is necessary to devise software metrics to qualify the various characteristics of components. The functional characters include the suitability, accuracy and the complexity and the nonfunctional characters include the usability, maintainability, reusability and performance.
It is necessary to measure the reusability of components in order to realize the reuse of components effectively. The table below (table 2) states the various components based reuse metrics. TABLE 2 REUSABILITY METRICS OF CBS
S.No. 1. Reusability Metrics Metric Name Description Existence of MetaCheck for the Information (EMI) targeted component Rate of Components Customizability (RCC) Rate of Components Observability (RCO) Percentage of modifiability of component as per the users requirement Percentage of user to understand the behavior of a component from outside the component. Checks for the external dependency of component Measures the complexity of components in terms of constraint and configuration The number of attributes having other classes as their Types Ratio of number of nonsimilar method pairs to total number of method pairs in the Class Ratio of number of similar method pairs to Contributor

2.

Data Abstraction Coupling (DAC) Message Passing coupling (MPC) Number of methods (NOM) Lines of code (LOC) Tight Class Coupling (TCC),

Washizaki et al [2002] [16]

Li and Henry [1995] [5]

3. 4.

El Emam [2001] [6] 2. Bieman [1995] [7]

Self-completeness of Components (SCC) Complexity interface complexity (CIC)

5.

The QMOOD (Quality Model for Object-Oriented Design) is a comprehensive quality model that establishes a clearly defined and empirically validated model to assess OOD quality attributes such as understandability and reusability, and relates it through mathematical formulas, with structural OOD properties such as encapsulation and coupling. The QMOOD model that establishes relationship between six OOD quality attributes (reusability, flexibility, understandability, functionality, extendibility, and effec-

Number of Operations overridden by a subclass (NOO)

V. Prasanna Venkataesan and M. Krishnamurthy [2009] [17]

Henderson-Sellers [1996] [8]

3.

Data Abstraction Coupling (DAC)

Ratio of Lack of Cohesion of Methods (RLCOM)

Gui Gui and Paul D. Scott [2008] [19]

Tight Class Coupling (TCC)

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

32

total number of method pairs in the class 4. Component Portability Metric (CPM) Measure systems flexibility, evaluating its ability to adapt to requirements changes, replace-ability and conformance aspects whether as a result of system redesign or to accommodate multiple applications. To identify the critical components and, in addition, characterize the circumstances that make a component critical

Standard conformance (SDCON)

Discoverability (DC)

Puneet Goswami [2010] [20]

2.

Service Coupling (SC)

Degree to which the service conforms to the relevant standards Measure the extent to which the service is easily and correctly discovered by Consumers Extent to which a service is interrelated with other services Degree of the strength of functional relevance of activities carried out by a service to realize a business process Scope of functionality that individual services implement The point that a given composite service cannot be matched with other context Requirements Count of clients which depend on service belongs to group of service i.e. which invoke its operations Degree to which a service is accessible and operational when service consumer requests for use

5.

CRIT( inheritance, size,link,bridge)

Service Cohesion (SCO) V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, and B.Hendradjaya [2007] [18] Service Granularity (SG)

Qian Ma, et al. [2009] [25]

2.3 Service Oriented Reuse Metrics Reusability of service is the degree to which the service can be used in more than one business process or service application, without having much overhead to discover, configure, and invoke it. [24] Quality of service could be measured though service reusability. Reusability in services is a measure of service components. The various existing reuse metrics for service oriented system are listed in table 3. TABLE 3 REUSABILITY METRICS OF SOS
S.No. 1. Reusability Metrics Metric Name Description Business ComAssessing the monality (BCM) degree of functional commonness and nonfunctional commonness of the service in a business domain Modularity (MD) Degree to which a service is independent on other services Adaptability (AD) Check for service to meet consumers expectation Contributors 3.

Mismatch (MM)

Importance of Service (IS)

Availability (SA)

Si Won Choi, et al. [2007] [28]

C Si Won Choi and Soo Dong Kim [2009] [24]

2.4 Quality factors for Reusability Here the quality factors [14, 16, 17, 24, and 26] for reusability has been listed and the graph displayed states the influence of these factors for reusability on the three systems considered. Complexity Understandability Adaptability Portability Testability.

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617 http://sites.google.com/site/journalofcomputing/

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

33

Usability Modularity.
Reusability Factors on Three Systems
Software Systems

SOS CBS OOS 0 5 10

No. of Reusability Factors used

Fig. 1. Reusability Factors on Three Systems

Figure 1 shows the no of reusability attributes used in three systems. This gives a clear idea about that factors which are used to compute reusability. OOS uses four [9], CBS uses six [16, 17] and SOS uses seven [24, 26] factors for assessing the reusability. The claim that SOS provides high reusability is confirmed from the above figure.

record how the metrics are categorized and what factors influence the evolution of the metrics. The template features are explained in detail below. Name: Address the name of the metrics Type: States whether it is direct or indirect in the evolution concept Constituents: Gives the list of features, aspects or measures that are involved in the measurement of the mentioned metrics. It could be again classified into direct and indirect Direct: Constituents that are involved directly Indirect: The constituents that are involved through another measure or metric ie., indirectly. For Example consider the complexity metrics of component based system, (CIC) Metric Name : : (CIC) Type : Direct Metric Constituents Direct Constraint Complexity Configuration Complexity Indirect Cyclomatic Complexity of Weight method per class Metric Inheritance Complexities of Depth of Inheritance Metric No of children of all classes from Number of Children Metric Figure 3 provides the complete picture of the Component Interface metric along with its constituents and this template based approach forms the base for the evolution based model.
Fig. 3. CIC represent using template

Component Interface complexity

3 PROPOSED WORK
3.1 Objective of the Study The study here focuses on exhibiting various reusability metrics of the three observed systems, namely object oriented, component base and service oriented systems and stating the quality factors affecting reusability. This study directs to find the relationship between the metrics of the systems considered. Hence the objective of the study could be coined to propose an evolution based model, which considers the quality factors, to form the relationship of metrics that could be brought out between the systems and thereby to state the maturity level of reuse metrics and to identify the gaps to measure complete reusability for service oriented systems. 3.2 Brief Objective of the Study Overview of Template for Reusable Metrics

3.3 Evolution based Model (EBM) The above section has portrayed the existing reusability metrics in the three systems of OO, CB and SO systems. Each individual table gives the complete details of the metrics observed which include attributes, factors, description, etc. The proposed model has been designed primarily to bring out the relationship between the metrics of the three systems. This relationship has been brought based on two aspects.
Fig. 2. Template for Reusable Metrics

3.3.1 Implicit Aspects

The purpose of the template (figure 2) is to study and

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

34

Implicit aspect focuses on the quality factors specified in the previous section. Here the relationship is made with evolution in mind, ie. from object oriented to component based and from component based to service oriented. This relationship has been again classified into direct and indirect. Direct here refers to metrics being influenced completely by the quality factor along with its relevant metrics. Indirect specifies the metrics that has been partially influenced by the quality factor or having minor effects on it.

For e.g. In object oriented systems WMC metric which has its measure as number of functions and has been classified as direct under complexity quality factor because the increase in this measure directly affects the complexity of the system. In case of indirect CBO metric has its measure as no of other classes to which it is coupled. This measure affects the coupling factor which has a minor effect on complexity.

A. Relating OO metrics to CBS metrics Let us consider the first evolution object oriented to component based as shown in table 4.

TABLE 4 RELATING OOS METRICS TO CBS METRICS USING REUSABILITY FACTORS

Reusability Factors Object Oriented System Direct Complexity Understandability Adaptability Modularity Portability Testability DIT, NOC, WMC,RFC WMC,DIT,LCOM DIT,NOC CBO,LCOM CBO,LCOM Class and size metrics, CBO,DIT,NOC,WMC,RFC Indirect CBO,LCOM RFC,CBO DIT,NOC Component Based System Direct CIC[17,21],DIT,NOC EMI,RCO,CIC RCC SCC,CRITsize[18], WMC CPM[21],SCC Sizing, Coupling and cohesion, inheritance and complexity Understandability & complexity metrics Indirect DAC,TCC, RLCOM19] DIT CRITinheritance[19],NOC -

Usability

Understandability& complexity metrics

This table brings the reusability metrics pertaining to respect to complexity of object oriented systems has been each of the quality factors with respect to object oriented directly consumed by component based system. Metrics and component based systems. Here the metrics are like CIC of component based system is similar to WMC of classified listed out with their relevance to the adjacent object oriented systems. quality factor. This gives a clear picture that there exists some metrics that have been fully consumed from object B. Relating CBS metrics to SOS oriented to component based system and some that has made use of the attributes alone. For eg., DIT metrics with TABLE 5 RELATING CBS METRICS TO SOS METRICS USING REUSABILITY FACTORS
Reusability Factors Complexity Understandability Adaptability Modularity Portability Testability Component Based System Direct CIC,DIT,NOC EMI,RCO,CIC RCC SCC, CRITsize, WMC CPM,SCC Sizing, Coupling and cohesion, inheritance and complexity InDirect DAC,TCC, RLCOM DIT CRITinheritance,NOC Service Oriented System Direct NCS , IS, SC , SCO[25], SID[24] Standard conformance and Discoverability SC, Mismatch metrics MD,SC,SA SA,SCO, and SC

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

35

Usability

Understandability & complexity metrics

Availability[28], AD and Discoverability

Table 5 gives classification of reusability metrics of the next evolution Component based system to Service oriented systems. Here also the same classification pattern as followed in table IV is adopted. But there is no classification as indirect for services, as the metrics are all directly reflected towards the quality factors. Here all the metrics are in a way related with similar measures only, and no metric has been consumed as such in service oriented system from component based systems.

3.3.2. Explicit Aspects Explicit aspect states the direct relationship as specified by the contributors mentioned in each table for the three systems respectively. This is depicted in figure. 4 which give a precise picture of listing of reusability metrics with respect to the systems considered as mentioned [24]. Here [ ] symbol represents the strong relation, () symbol represents weak relation and => denotes implication

Design Level Reusability Metrics

OOS Reusability Metrics

CBS Reusability Metrics

SOS Reusability Metrics

WMC

CIC

BCM

CBO

TCC, RLCOM

RLCOM

MD

NOC

DAC

AD

DIT

CPM

SDCON

RFC

CRIT(s, i, b, l)

DC

LCOM EMI SA SC, SCO

RCC

RCO

SG

SCC(r, p)

MM

IS
Fig. 4. Evolution based Model
2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

36

5 DISCUSSIONS
The literature survey has led to the formulation of the proposed model to state the reusability metrics and their relationship towards the three systems. The proposed model stated in the previous section brings out the relevance of the metrics with various quality factors of reusability. Here the impact of metrics on one system towards other system is tabularized. The tables 6 and 7 state it clearly. Column 1 states the relationship and column 2 gives the associated description.Table 6 gives the impact of reusability metrics of object oriented system on reusability metrics of component based systems.

TABLE 6 IMPACT OF OOS REUSABILITY METRICS ON CBS

Relation between OO and CBS reusability metrics [WMC, NOC, DIT] (RFC) => CIC Description CIC metric of CBS are derived from the OO metrics of WMC,NOC, DIT for measuring the Component Complexity and also it uses the RFC as a weak entity For measuring cohesion, components use LCOM as strong entity and CBO as weak entity of OOS, from these metrics it derives new metrics like TCC, RLCOM for CBS Coupling in OOS deals with dependency between Classes, In component the unit is different i.e. higher level DAC metric which is derived from CBO of OOS Component based System has an advantage of high portability. To measure this it uses CBO and LCOM of OOS CRIT measures the criticality of the components in terms of size, link, bridge and inheritance. For assessing the criticality it uses the WMC, NOC, RFC and DIT i.e. the complexity and inheritance metrics of OOS. EMI of CBS derived from the OOS metrics of WMC and DIT for measuring the usage of components. In OOS WMC and DIT deals with understandability. Component customization metrics of CBS derived from/uses the NOC and DIT metrics of OOS as these two metrics are used for adaptability. Self-completeness of component is measured by using the LCOM and CBO metrics of OOS. Both metrics are used to verify the dependency and functionality of the classes Component Observability (RCO) uses the DIT, LCOM and WMC metrics of OOS because this metrics are used to predict the behaviour of classes.

[LCOM] (CBO) => TCC, RLCOM

[CBO] => DAC

[CBO, LCOM] => CPM [WMC, NOC, RFC, DIT] => CRIT

[WMC, DIT] => EMI

[NOC, DIT] => RCC

[LCOM, CBO] => SCC (r,p)

[DIT, LCOM, WMC] => RCO

TABLE 7 IMPACT OF CBS, OOS REUSABILITY METRICS ON SOS

Relation between OO,CBS to SOS reusability metrics [CIC, CPM, SCC](RCC) => BCM Description Commonality of services in SOS uses BCM metric which have evolution from the CIC, CPM, and SCC metrics of CBS i.e. RCC serve as weak entity. Service Modularity (MD) of SOS uses the SCC and CRIT metrics of CBS. Both of these CBS metrics used to assess the modularity in Components. The Adaptability metrics of Services are derived from the RCC metrics of CBS. RCC deals with Customization of Components to be used in different context.

[SCC, CRIT] => MD

[RCC] => AD

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

37

(CPM) => SDCON

[EMI, RCO, CIC] (DIT) => DC

[CIC, SCC] (RCC) => SG (CBO, DAC) => SCO (LCOM,RLCOM) => SC

Standardization of Services is achieved if the service suits for portability. To measure this SOS uses the SDCON metric which derived/used the CPM metric of CBS is a weak entity. Service Discovery is more when their descriptions are clear. i.e. the syntax and semantics are well defined. In SOS DC metric is used to measure discovery of services which uses the EMI, RCO, and CIC of CBS as strong entity and DIT of OOS as weak entity. Granularity of Services in SOS measured based on its functionalities. SG of SOS directly uses the CIC, SCC of CBS and it also uses RCC of CBS as weak entity. Coupling between services (SCO) uses the CBO of OOS and DAC of CBS as weak metrics because service coupling doesnt measure the internal dependency. Granularity of Services in SOS measured based on its functionalities. SG of SOS uses the LCOM and RLCOM for assessing the granularity because these metrics are used to predict the functionalities in the existing systems like OOS and CBS. For checking the Mismatch in services (MM) CIC, RCC, and SCC of CBS are used as strong entities because these metrics reveals on internal details of components. Importance of Service is a complex measure in SOS deals with the service interface. IS uses the CIC metric of CBS. Service Availability of SOS (SA) uses the RFC of OOS as weak entity. In CBS there is no direct metric for checking the availability of components.

[CIC, RCC, SCC] => MM

(CIC) => IS (RFC) => SA

Table 7 depicts clearly how existing reusability metrics of service oriented systems has evolved from reusability metrics of object oriented systems and component based systems From the above two tables it is clearly analysed that reusability metrics of service oriented systems has brought only few direct metrics affecting the quality factors of reusability. The implications show that number of measures and metrics for reusability in service oriented systems is low when compared to other two systems. Reusability being the key paradigm of service oriented systems has not been addressed with all its relevant factors and has not been formularised with any particular measure. The assumption of various definition and factors of reusability has itself proves the immaturity of the systems metrics. The maturity level of reusability in service oriented systems is high, but the proposed evolution based model and the discussion show that there exists no equal metric suite for it.

6 CONCLSUION
Reusability is one prime quality factor of any software systems. Achieving reusability through Service Oriented System has gained much interest and significance with researchers. In this paper an evolution based model is proposed which gives the listing of various Reusability metrics of the three systems OO, CB, and SO systems. The Proposed model paved a way to form the relationship among the reusability metrics of the systems considered and to bring their impact of each their reusability metrics on other. The discussion has clearly proved the immature state of reusability metric of service oriented systems and a need for formalisation of factors and measures for reusability. At the outset a metric suite to address all the factors of reusability in service oriented systems is still an open issue.

REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] E. Smith, et al., 1998, A Multi-Tiered Classification Scheme for Component Retrieval, Proc. Euromicro Conference, 24(Vol. 2) 882 889. V.R. Basili, 1989, Software Development: A Paradigm for the Future, Proc.COMPAC 89, (Los Alamitos, Calif.: IEEE CS Press,) 471-485. B.W. Goodwin, T.H. Andres, et al., 1996, Radiological assessment. Technical Report AECL-11494-5, COG-95-552-5, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd S. R. Chidamber and C. F. Kemerer, 1994, A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 20(6):476493 Li, W., Henry, S., Kafura, D., and Schulman, R., "Measuring Object-Oriented Design," Journal of Object-Oriented Programming, Volume 8, No. 4, July/August 1995, pp. 48-55 El Emam, K.; Benlarbi, S.; Goel, N. and Rai, S. N.: The confounding effect of class size on the validity of object-oriented metrics, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 27(7): 630-650, 2001. [7] J.M. Bieman, B.K. Kang: Cohesion and Reuse in an ObjectOriented System, Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Software Reusability, April 1995 [8] Brian Henderson-Sellers: Object-Oriented Metrics - Measures of Complexity, srie: The Object-Oriented Series, Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, NJ, EUA, ISBN 0-13-10 239872, 1996a. [9] Mythili Thirugnanam and Swathi.J.N, 2010, Quality Metrics Tool for Object Oriented Programming, International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 5, 1793-8201. [10] Parvinder S. Sandhu, et al., 2009, Modeling of Reusability of Object Oriented Software System, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 56. [11] C. Neelamegam, Dr. M. Punithavalli , 2009, A Survey Object Oriented Quality Metrics, Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 183-186

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 9, SEPTEMBER 2011, ISSN 2151-9617 HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG

38

[12] Arun Sharma, et al., 2006, "Investigation of reusability, complexity and customizability for component-based systems", ICFAI Journal of IT, Vol.2 Iss. 1. [13] Arun Sharma, et al., 2007, A Critical Survey of Reusability Aspects for Component Based Systems, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 33. [14] Arun Sharma, 2009, Design and Analysis of Metrics for Component-Based Software Systems theisis, Thapar University. [15] Octavian Paul ROTARU and Marian DOBRE, 2005, Reusability Metrics for Software Components IEEE. [16] Hironori Washizahi, et al., 2003A Metrics Suite for Measuring Reusability of Software Components, Proceedings of the Ninth International Software Metrics Symposium (METRICS03). [17] V. Prasanna Venkataesan and M. Krishnamurthy, 2009, A Metrics Suite for Measuring Software Components, Journal of Convergence Information Technology Volume 4, Number 2. [18] V.Lakshmi Narasimhan, and B.Hendradjaya, 2007,Some Theoretical Considerations for a suite of metrics for the integration of Software Components, Information Sciences 177, 844864. [19] Gui and Paul D. Scott, 2008, New Coupling and Cohesion Metrics for Evaluation of Software Component Reusability, The 9th International Conference for Young Computer Scientists, IEEE. [20] Puneet Goswami, 2010, A Metrics Methodology For Predicting Reusable Suite of Component Based Software System, International Journal of Computer Science and Security, Volume (4): Issue (1). [21] Nasib S., et al., 2003, "Necessary Guidelines for deriving Component Based Metrics". In ACM SIGPLAN SEN Vol 28, #6 Page: 30. G. Shanmugasundaram obtained his B.Tech in Information Technology (2005) from BCET, Pondicherry University. He received his M.Tech in Computer Science and Engineering (2008) from SMVEC, Pondicherry University. Currently he is pursuing his Ph.D in Department of Banking Technology, Pondicherry University.He is having 2 years of teaching experience and 1 year in software development. His research area includes Service Oriented Architecture and Web Technologies. Dr. V. Prasanna Venkatesan is currently an Associate Professor, Department of Banking Technology, Pondicherry University. He earned his B.Sc in Physics (1986) from Arignar Anna Arts College, karaikal.He received his M.C.A (1989) from Pondicherry Engineering College, M.Tech in Computer Science & Engineering (1995) from Pondicherry University and Ph.D in Computer Science & Engineering (2008) from Pondicherry University. He is having more than 20 years of teaching experience. He has published 3 books and papers in national and international journals/ conferences. His research area includes Software Architecture, Banking Technology, Object Oriented Modelling and Design, Smart Banking. C. Punitha Devi obtained her B.sc in Computer Science (1996) and M.C.A (1999) from Bharathidasan University and M.Tech in Computer Science & Engineering (2007) from Pondicherry University. Currently she is pursuing his Ph.D in Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Pondicherry University. She is having 10 years of teaching experience. Her research area includes Service Oriented Architecture and Software Engineering.

[22] V. Lakshmi Narasimhan, et al., 2009, Evaluation of a Suite of Metrics for Component Based Software Engineering (CBSE), Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, Volume 6. [23] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/service-oriented/justifying-soa12-key-metrics-to-keep-tabs-on/1950 [24] C Si Won Choi and Soo Dong Kim, 2009, A Quality Model for Evaluating Reusability of Services in SOA *,10th IEEE Conference on E-Commerce Technology and the Fifth IEEE Conference on Enterprise Computing, E-Commerce and E-Services, pp. 293-298 [25] Qian Ma, et al., 2009,Evaluating Service Identification with Design Metrics on Business Process Decomposition, IEEE International Conference on Services Computing. [26] Liam OBrien Lero, et al., 2007,Quality Attributes of Service Oriented Architecture, International Workshop on Systems Development in SOA Environments (SDSOA'07). [27] A. Khoshkbarforoushha, et al., 2010,A Metric for Composite Service Reusability Analysis, WETSoM10. [28] Si Won Choi, et al., 2007,Modeling QoS Attributes and Metrics for Evaluating Services in SOA Considering Consumers Perspective as the First Class Requirement, IEEE Asia-Pacific Services Computing Conference. [29] A. Khoshkbarforoushha, P. Jamshidi, S. Khoshnevis, A. Nikravesh, F. Shams, 2009, A Metric for Measuring BPEL Process Context-Independency, IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications, (SOCA'09), Taipei, Taiwan. DOI: 10.1109/SOCA.2009.5410260 [30] Haesen, R., Snoeck, M., Lemahieu, W., Poelmans S., 2008, On the Definition of Service Granularity and Its Architectural Impact, Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 375-389.

2011 Journal of Computing Press, NY, USA, ISSN 2151-9617