Open Access
MATEC Web of Conferences
Volume 57, 2016
4th International Conference on Advancements in Engineering & Technology (ICAET-2016)
Article Number 02012
Number of page(s) 6
Section Information Systems & Computer Science Engineering
Published online 11 May 2016
  1. Martin Fowler, Kent, John Brant, William Opdyke, Don Roberts, D. B. “Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code”, Addison-Wesley, New York, (1999). [Google Scholar]
  2. Roberts, D. B “Practical Analysis for Refactoring”, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (1999). [Google Scholar]
  3. Opdyke, W. F, “Refactoring Object-Oriented Frameworks”, PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, (1992). [Google Scholar]
  4. E.Mealy and P.Strooper, ”Evaluating software Refactoring Tool support”, Proceeding of Australian Software Engineering Conference, pp. 331-340, (2006). [Google Scholar]
  5. E.Mealy, D.Carrington, P.Strooper, and P.Wyeth, “Improving usability of software refactoring tools”, Proceeding of Australian Software Engineering Conference , pp.307-318, (Apr. 2007). [Google Scholar]
  6. Tom Mens and Tom Touwe, “A survey of software refactoring” IEEE Transactions on software Engineering, vol.30, no.2, pp. 126-139, (Feb 2004). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Sandeep kaur , “Review on Identification and Refactoring of Bad Smells using Eclipse”, International Journal For Technological Research In Engineering (IJTRE) Volume 2, (March-2015). [Google Scholar]
  8. R. Fanta and V. Rajlich, “Reengineering object-oriented code,” in Proceeding of International Conference on Software Maintenance, pp. 238–246, 1998, IEEE Computer Society. [Google Scholar]
  9. Eclipse Modeling Framework (EMF) - [Google Scholar]
  10. EMF Refactor - [Google Scholar]
  11. JDeodorant - [Google Scholar]
  12. EMF Metrics Plugin - [Google Scholar]
  13. Mika V. Mäntylä, Jari Vanhanen, and Casper Lassenius, ”A taxonomy and an initial empirical study of bad smells in code”, In Proceedings of International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2003), IEEE Computer Society pages 381–384, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, (September 2003). [Google Scholar]
  14. Nikolaos Tsantalis and Alexander Chatzigeorgiou, “Identification of move method refactoring opportunities”, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 35(3):347–367, (2009). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Nikolaos Tsantalis, “Identification Of Move Method Refactoring Opportunities”, IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. 35, No. 3, (May/June 2009). [Google Scholar]
  16. S.H. Kannangara, “An Empirical Evaluation Of Impact Of Refactoring On Internal And External Measures Of Code Quality”, International Journal Of Software Engineering & Applications (Ijsea), Vol.6, No.1, (January 2015). [Google Scholar]
  17. J. van den Bos, “Refactoring (in) Eclipse”, Master Software Engineering, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Master’s thesis , (August 2008). [Google Scholar]
  18. Mesfin Abebe and Cheol-Jung Yoo, “Trends, Opportunities and Challenges of Software Refactoring: A Systematic Literature Review”, International Journal of Software Engineering and Its Applications Vol.8, No.6 ,pp.299-318,( 2014). [Google Scholar]
  19. Emerson Murphy-Hill and Andrew P. Black, “Refactoring Tools: Fitness for Purpose”, Department of Computer Science, Portland State University Portland, Oregon, (May 7, 2008). [Google Scholar]
  20. D. Raj Kumar, G.M. Chanakya, “Refactoring Framework for Instance Code Smell Detection”, International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Engineering & Technology (IJARCET) Volume 3 Issue 9, (September 2014). [Google Scholar]
  21. Emerson Murphy-Hill, Chris Parnin, And Andrew P. Black, “How We Refactor, And How We Know It”, IEEE Transactions On Software Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 1, (January/February 2012). [Google Scholar]
  22. Karim O. Elish, “Using Software Quality Attributes to Classify Refactoring to Patterns”, Journal Of Software, Vol. 7, No. 2, (February 2012). [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.