Robert Koberg <rob@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Tony Graham wrote:
>>
>> Since I have only vague ideas on what to measure to determine
>> complexity, I would have the complexity stylesheet output XML
>> representing the counts for the different factors being measured in
>> case the weighting for the various factors ever needs to change.  It
>> would also make it easier to write one complexity stylesheet that
>> would be used to compute multiple complexity metrics, just as the
>> cyclomatic complexity page refers to multiple, complementary metrics.
>
> Wouldn't this all be dependent on the source XML? In other words, if you are
> dealing with one set of XML (data oriented) and I am dealing with another
> (document oriented) and X is dealing with yet another (tree/nested), the XSL
> would be widely different. And for good reasons. Would you want to compare
> those?

As Michael Kay quite rightly said, it all depends on what you are
measuring it for.

If you were surveying stylesheet complexity, just to see what the
general experience is, I would also expect different trends for
XML-to-XML, XML-to-(X)HTML, and XML-to-FO transformation types.

If you are contemplating a short term job doing maintenance on a
stylesheet that someone else wrote, then one consideration is how much
time you need to put it before you understand what's going on.  A
stylesheet could be needlessly complex even if the XML is simple.  A
proven metric could give you some idea of how long it would take
before you could effectively make large changes.

Running a generally accepted metric for the stylesheet, particularly
if the client can do it for themselves, could be more credible than
you [expletive deleted] in your breath and saying "You're having problems with X?
I could change it, but it would cost ya..."  After all, the client has
probably already heard that line too many times from his
mechanic/plumber/electrician.

Regards,


Tony.