Assessing Interface Dependency Complexity in Components based Software Systems (CBSS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/dbitdjr.2025.2.02.03Keywords:
Software Complexity, Software metric, Information flow, Traditional metrics, CBSSAbstract
Systems with high complexity typically exhibit a balanced combination of order and disorder, characterized by the coexistence of randomness and regularity. In component-based software engineering, each component contributes to overall system complexity through its inherent constraints, interaction mechanisms with other components, and the degree of customizability it supports. As software systems grow in scale and interconnectivity, understanding and managing such complexity becomes critical to ensuring system reliability, maintainability, and quality. Measuring system dependency and interaction complexity provides valuable insights into potential design weaknesses and helps assess software quality at both component and system levels. Complexity metrics play a crucial role in enabling objective comparison across different software systems by applying standardized measurement frameworks. Existing complexity measures, however, often focus primarily on internal code structure, overlooking the significance of component interfaces that govern communication, data exchange, and functional coordination. The author has pointed out a novel interface complexity metric for software components in the study. Based on the quantity, kind, and structural features of interface methods and attributes that a component exposes, the suggested metric measures complexity. Factors such as method signatures, parameter types, data dependencies, access constraints, and interaction frequency are considered to capture the true interaction burden imposed by component interfaces. By focusing on interface-level complexity, the metric provides a more accurate representation of component interdependencies and their impact on overall system behaviour. The proposed approach supports improved software design evaluation, facilitates early detection of architectural vulnerabilities, and aids developers in enhancing modularity, reusability, and long-term system quality.
References
Szyperski, C. (2002). Component software: Beyond object oriented programming (2nd ed.). Addison Wesley, New York.
Narasimhan, L., & Hendradjaya, B. (2007). Some theoretical considerations for a suite of metrics for the integration of software components. Information Sciences, 177, 844–864.
Li, B. (2003). Managing dependencies in component-based systems based on matrix model. In Proceedings of Net Object Days. Citeseer, 22–25.
Sharma, A., Grover, P. S., & Kumar, R. (2009). Dependency analysis for component-based software systems. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 34, 1–6.
Singh, R., & Grover, P. S. (1997). A new program weighted complexity metric. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (CONSEG’97), Chennai, India, 33–39.
Harrison, W., Magel, K., Kluezny, R., & DeKock, A. (1982). Applying software complexity metrics to program maintenance. IEEE Computer, 15, 65–79.
De Lucia, A., Fasolino, A. R., & Munro, M. (1996). Understanding function behaviors through program slicing. In Proceedings of WPC, 9.
Bates, S., & Horwitz, S. (1993). Incremental program testing using program dependence graphs. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGPLAN–SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, 384–396.
Halstead, M. H. (1977). Elements of software science. Elsevier North Holland, New York.
Chidamber, S. R., & Kemerer, C. F. (1994). A metrics suite for object oriented design. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 476–492.
Kafura, D., & Henry, S. (1981). Software quality metrics based on interconnectivity. Journal of Systems and Software, 2, 121–131.
Li, B., Zhong, D., Nadendla, D., Terceros, G., Bhandar, P., & Nicholas, C. (2025). MASCOT: Analyzing malware evolution through a well-curated source code dataset. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2512.00741.
Watson, A. H., Wallace, D. R., & McCabe, T. J. (1996). Structured testing: A testing methodology using the cyclomatic complexity metric (Vol. 500, No. 235). US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.
Siahaan, V., Ginting, H., & Amri, M. (2025). Cyclomatic complexity and maintainability in modern software: A systematic review. Journal of Data Science, Technology, and Computer Science, 5(1), 8–16.
Fenton, N. E., & Pfleeger, S. L. (1996). Software metrics: A rigorous and practical approach (2nd ed.). International Thomson Computer Press, Boston.
Zuse, H. (1991). Software complexity: Measures and methods. De Gruyter, Berlin and Boston. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866087
Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103(2), 241–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.241
Wicaksono, S. R., & Sandaa, I. E. E. (2024). Function point analysis for quality evaluation of a natural resource information system in Bulungan Regency. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Electrical Engineering, Informatics, Industrial Technology, and Creative Media, 4(1), 1163–1172.
Tagen, I. A., Wassef, K. T., Moawad, R., & Mohammad, S. S. (2025). Software reliability estimation of component-based systems. IEEE Access.
