On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Bob Tarling <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would think such a tool should preferably operate without any > developer input but could then be tuned. My impression was that Alberto's questionaire was to establish a ground truth of expert opinion against which to measure the results of his tool(s). This is something that would be done during the development/evaluation phase of the tool, not something that you'd do as a matter of course if he were able to come up with suitable automatic algorithms. > When viewing the results of the above the seasoned developwe may spot > anomalies and then choose to remove items that are not relevant (for > argouml that would almost certainly be the critics). Except for a developer who wanted to extend the critics to cover UML 1.4 or 2.x or modify the critic infrastructure to operate differently. That was my point about importance being context sensitive. I agree that for developers focused on other areas, critics could be largely irrelevant (although the general knowledge that ArgoUML has multiple threads of execution is probably important context for all developers). BTW Alberto, I'd avoid the term "hot spots" and stick to "important classes" or something similar. For me, hotspots is something I asssociate with performance profiling (which may also be why Bob was referencing code coverage utilities). Tom ------------------------------------------------------ http://argouml.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=450&dsMessageId=2613763 To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]]. To be allowed to post to the list contact the mailing list moderator, email: [[email protected]]
