![[spacer]](/schemes/blue/line.gif){kind=small}
|
Joel Clawson 1. what do you consider the main message of the paper? The main message of the paper is that reuse is a good idea, but it is difficult to create a system that fosters reuse. 2. how is this work applicable to your own 2.1. work? At work we have a repository for all code to be placed. It is a drop off ground for code and very hard to find what you want to use. There is not any documentation for the files in the repository, so you cannot even tell what it is there. 2.2. interests? I try to keep a place on my computer for my code so I can reuse it. It is mostly Java code, so it is set up in a way like the Java libraries. 3. do you have ideas how the work in the paper could or should be further developed? 4. have you used any reuse libraries 4.2. if yes: which ones? did the libraries have any particular strengths and weaknesses? I have used the Java libraries. The strength is that there is a lot of functionality in the libraries and are arranged in a directory structure that makes it easier to find, if you know what kind of functionality you are looking for. The weakness is that if you do not know exactly what you are looking for or if you know what you are looking for, it is not obvious where to look for the functions in the directory structure. 5. How does Codebroker infer the "task-at-hand"? It uses the Javadoc descriptions and signature to search for code in the library that might be useful for the function. 6. what are the trade-offs between 6.1. to let the systems infer the task-at-hand When the system infers the task, it provides information all the time whether it is needed or not. It is good because it could provide information about functions to reuse that the user may not know about. 6.2. versus that the users specifies the task at hand? If the user specifies that task, the user would be able to better specify the task for their use, but the user needs to be able to specify the task so it will provide the kind of results that are wanted. |
