<lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by it in this thread.
no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:15:26 PM UTC+2, Kim Gräsman wrote:
> Ask Jim Coplien. I did, and I still haven't recovered.
> - Kim
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Lance Walton > <lance.c...@googlemail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > I'm responding to the thread rather than Colin's particular post.
> > I've been building software commercially now for almost 20 years, and > the longer I do it the less I understand what people mean by > 'architecture'. Can anybody define it for me, at least in the context of > this thread?
I always go back to the analogy of software architecture with house and town architecture.
How do you ensure the plumbing of a house works, and that the rooms are friendly, and the house doesn’t fall down?
How do you ensure that the houses and the roads and the bridges and the business fit together nicely?
It’s all what we might call architecture at different levels.
If you get to an architecture by letting it evolve, or you impose it from the outside – it’s still there and you can still – fruitfully – discuss it.
You may want to deny the word – but there’s something behind them.
John D.
But in his lean arch. book (2010) Coplien just say that it is:"the form of a system"
-Reuven
On Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:15:26 PM UTC+2, Kim Gräsman wrote:
Ask Jim Coplien. I did, and I still haven't recovered.
> I always go back to the analogy of software architecture with house and town architecture.
> How do you ensure the plumbing of a house works, and that the rooms are friendly, and the house doesn’t fall down?
> How do you ensure that the houses and the roads and the bridges and the business fit together nicely?
> It’s all what we might call architecture at different levels.
> If you get to an architecture by letting it evolve, or you impose it from the outside – it’s still there and you can still – fruitfully – discuss it.
-----Original Message-----
From: growing-object-oriented-software@googlegroups.com [mailto:growing-object-oriented-software@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Freeman
Sent: 19 October 2012 12:36
To: growing-object-oriented-software@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [GOOS] A walking skeleton when there are lots of communicating components
Agreed. And there are metaphors out there about how enterprise architecture is more like town planning.
S
On 19 Oct 2012, at 11:33, Donaldson, John wrote:
> I always go back to the analogy of software architecture with house and town architecture.
> How do you ensure the plumbing of a house works, and that the rooms are friendly, and the house doesn't fall down?
> How do you ensure that the houses and the roads and the bridges and the business fit together nicely?
> It's all what we might call architecture at different levels.
> If you get to an architecture by letting it evolve, or you impose it from the outside - it's still there and you can still - fruitfully - discuss it.
FWIW, "urbanisation" in France applies mostly to enterprise-wide
architecture. So, big companies would be interested in it; smaller
companies, less so. In fact, I've only heard it in connection to the likes
of EDF, Eurocontrol, etc. Somehow, their presentations always involved
(that was years ago) EAI software.
Indeed, "urbanisation" translates as "town planning".
On 19 October 2012 12:49, Donaldson, John <John.M.Donald...@hp.com> wrote:
> Yes - the French seem to call it "urbanization" - as far as I can tell
> "town planning" - but still a sort of architecture.
> John D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: growing-object-oriented-software@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> growing-object-oriented-software@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Freeman
> Sent: 19 October 2012 12:36
> To: growing-object-oriented-software@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [GOOS] A walking skeleton when there are lots of
> communicating components
> Agreed. And there are metaphors out there about how enterprise
> architecture is more like town planning.
> S
> On 19 Oct 2012, at 11:33, Donaldson, John wrote:
> > I always go back to the analogy of software architecture with house and
> town architecture.
> > How do you ensure the plumbing of a house works, and that the rooms are
> friendly, and the house doesn't fall down?
> > How do you ensure that the houses and the roads and the bridges and the
> business fit together nicely?
> > It's all what we might call architecture at different levels.
> > If you get to an architecture by letting it evolve, or you impose it
> from the outside - it's still there and you can still - fruitfully -
> discuss it.
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by it in this thread.
> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
:-)
A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition was given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the way it started.
I'm currently preparing a lecture & exercise on architecture for an
undergraduate course, and the term is actually defined by an IEEE
standard. IEEE1491 I think.
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
>> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by it in this thread.
>> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
>> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
>> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
> :-)
> A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition was given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
> I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the way it started.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nat Pryce <nat.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm currently preparing a lecture & exercise on architecture for an
> undergraduate course, and the term is actually defined by an IEEE
> standard. IEEE1491 I think.
> On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:22, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:56, Raoul Duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
> >> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all
> possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by
> it in this thread.
> >> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
> >> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
> >> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
> > :-)
> > A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition was
> given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
> > I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that
> definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the way it
> started.
The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components,
their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the
principles guiding its design and evolution.
But I prefer JB Rainsberger's definition -- it's far snappier.
--Nat
On 19 October 2012 15:36, Antonio Carpentieri <a.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nat Pryce <nat.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm currently preparing a lecture & exercise on architecture for an
>> undergraduate course, and the term is actually defined by an IEEE
>> standard. IEEE1491 I think.
>> On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:22, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:56, Raoul Duke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
>> >> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all
>> >>> possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by
>> >>> it in this thread.
>> >> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
>> >> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
>> >> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
>> > :-)
>> > A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition was
>> > given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
>> > I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that
>> > definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the way it
>> > started.
> But in his lean arch. book (2010) Coplien just say that it is:"the form of a system"
> -Reuven
> On Thursday, October 18, 2012 1:15:26 PM UTC+2, Kim Gräsman wrote:
> Ask Jim Coplien. I did, and I still haven't recovered.
> - Kim
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Lance Walton > <lance.c...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > I'm responding to the thread rather than Colin's particular post.
> > I've been building software commercially now for almost 20 years, and the longer I do it the less I understand what people mean by 'architecture'. Can anybody define it for me, at least in the context of this thread?
'fundamental', 'components', 'environment', 'principles' : I probably need to circle around a few more times before grokking this.
I prefer JB's definition better. I think Martin Fowler also said something like "architecture is the stuff that you will wish you'd done differently" or something like that.
> The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components,
> their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the
> principles guiding its design and evolution.
> But I prefer JB Rainsberger's definition -- it's far snappier.
> --Nat
> On 19 October 2012 15:36, Antonio Carpentieri <a.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> this one?
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nat Pryce <nat.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm currently preparing a lecture & exercise on architecture for an
>>> undergraduate course, and the term is actually defined by an IEEE
>>> standard. IEEE1491 I think.
>>> On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:22, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:56, Raoul Duke wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
>>>>> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all
>>>>>> possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by
>>>>>> it in this thread.
>>>>> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
>>>>> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
>>>>> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
>>>> :-)
>>>> A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition was
>>>> given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
>>>> I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that
>>>> definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the way it
>>>> started.
Heh, I actually like the IEEE definition, although I agree it is a bit
wordy. What I like is that it's expressed in terms of a "system" and, since
systems can be nested, implies that architecture is at every level not any
specific level. That's the way I see architecture: fractal.
On 19 October 2012 17:21, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> 'fundamental', 'components', 'environment', 'principles' : I probably need
> to circle around a few more times before grokking this.
> I prefer JB's definition better. I think Martin Fowler also said something
> like "architecture is the stuff that you will wish you'd done differently"
> or something like that.
> On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:47, Nat Pryce wrote:
> > That's it. IEEE 1471 defines architecture as:
> > The fundamental organization of a system embodied in its components,
> > their relationships to each other, and to the environment, and the
> > principles guiding its design and evolution.
> > But I prefer JB Rainsberger's definition -- it's far snappier.
> > --Nat
> > On 19 October 2012 15:36, Antonio Carpentieri <a.ca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> this one?
> >> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nat Pryce <nat.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I'm currently preparing a lecture & exercise on architecture for an
> >>> undergraduate course, and the term is actually defined by an IEEE
> >>> standard. IEEE1491 I think.
> >>> On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:22, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:56, Raoul Duke wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
> >>>>> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all
> >>>>>> possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people
> mean by
> >>>>>> it in this thread.
> >>>>> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
> >>>>> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
> >>>>> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
> >>>> :-)
> >>>> A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition
> was
> >>>> given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
> >>>> I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that
> >>>> definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the
> way it
> >>>> started.
On Friday, 19 October 2012 19:21:16 UTC+3, Lance Walton wrote:
> 'fundamental', 'components', 'environment', 'principles' : I probably need > to circle around a few more times before grokking this.
> I prefer JB's definition better. I think Martin Fowler also said something > like "architecture is the stuff that you will wish you'd done differently" > or something like that.
In "Who Needs an Architect?" [1] Martin Fowler says "I define *architecture *as a word we use when we want to talk about design but want to puff it up to make it sound important."
He also quotes Ralph Johnson who mentions some definitions, such as it being the "shared understanding" of the developers, *"the set of design decisions that must be made early in a project"* (commenting about it *"I complain about that one, too, saying that architecture is the decisions that you wish you could get right early in a project, but that you are not necessarily more likely to get them right than any other."*), and finally *"Architecture is about the important stuff. Whatever that is."*
I like Martin Fowler's definition of architecture being the things that are preceived as hard to change. I quote:
*Remember Johnson’s secondary definition: “Architecture is the decisions that you wish you could get right early in a project.” Why do people feel the need to get some things right early in the project? The answer, of course, is because they perceive those things as hard to change. So you might end up defining architecture as “things that people perceive as hard to change.” [--] I think that one of an architect’s most important tasks is to remove architecture by finding ways to eliminate irreversibility in software designs.*
> On Friday, 19 October 2012 19:21:16 UTC+3, Lance Walton wrote:
> 'fundamental', 'components', 'environment', 'principles' : I probably need to circle around a few more times before grokking this.
> I prefer JB's definition better. I think Martin Fowler also said something like "architecture is the stuff that you will wish you'd done differently" or something like that.
> In "Who Needs an Architect?" [1] Martin Fowler says "I define architecture as a word we use when we want to talk about design but want to puff it up to make it sound important."
> He also quotes Ralph Johnson who mentions some definitions, such as it being the "shared understanding" of the developers, "the set of design decisions that must be made early in a project" (commenting about it "I complain about that one, too, saying that architecture is the decisions that you wish you could get right early in a project, but that you are not necessarily more likely to get them right than any other."), and finally "Architecture is about the important stuff. Whatever that is."
> I like Martin Fowler's definition of architecture being the things that are preceived as hard to change. I quote:
> Remember Johnson’s secondary definition: “Architecture is the decisions that you wish you could get right early in a project.” Why do people feel the need to get some things right early in the project? The answer, of course, is because they perceive those things as hard to change. So you might end up defining architecture as “things that people perceive as hard to change.” [--] I think that one of an architect’s most important tasks is to remove architecture by finding ways to eliminate irreversibility in software designs.
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nat Pryce <nat.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm currently preparing a lecture & exercise on architecture for an
> undergraduate course, and the term is actually defined by an IEEE
> standard. IEEE1491 I think.
> On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:22, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:56, Raoul Duke wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
> >> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by it in this thread.
> >> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
> >> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
> >> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
> > :-)
> > A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition was given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
> > I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the way it started.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
> 'fundamental', 'components', 'environment', 'principles' : I probably need
> to circle around a few more times before grokking this.
> I prefer JB's definition better. I think Martin Fowler also said something
> like "architecture is the stuff that you will wish you'd done differently"
> or something like that.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM, David Peterson <da...@crowdsoft.com> wrote:
> Heh, I actually like the IEEE definition, although I agree it is a bit
> wordy. What I like is that it's expressed in terms of a "system" and, since
> systems can be nested, implies that architecture is at every level not any
> specific level. That's the way I see architecture: fractal.
On Friday, 19 October 2012 23:17:45 UTC+3, J. B. Rainsberger wrote: > I tell people that architecture is just large-scale design, and so the > same principles apply in the large as in the small. Most people don't buy > it at first.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Esko Luontola <esko.luont...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Friday, 19 October 2012 23:17:45 UTC+3, J. B. Rainsberger wrote:
>> I tell people that architecture is just large-scale design, and so the
>> same principles apply in the large as in the small. Most people don't buy
>> it at first.
To me, "architecture" is about things I sometimes need:
- make sure that we all have a rough idea of how we'll develop the system
- make sure new team members can find their way around
- make sure we can show the stakeholders that we have a clear idea of
how their problem could be solved, and how our solution will fit within the
rest of the enterprise system
The last point is about an attitude I've seen in some XP teams that might
say "we don't know how the system will be, we'll learn along the way" which
might be true but is not what will get you the trust of the stakeholders.
What do you think?
Matteo
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Nat Pryce <nat.pr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm currently preparing a lecture & exercise on architecture for an
>> undergraduate course, and the term is actually defined by an IEEE
>> standard. IEEE1491 I think.
>> On 19 Oct 2012, at 15:22, Lance Walton <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On 18 Oct 2012, at 21:56, Raoul Duke wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Lance Walton
>> >> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>> I should have been more specific. I don't want to know what all
>> possible ideas of 'architecture' are. I'd like to know what people mean by
>> it in this thread.
>> >> no, you actually said that a few times, no problem, but nobody can
>> >> resist giving their opinion when the subject comes up!!! that's part
>> >> of the effing problem with the whole subject, i bet :-)
>> > :-)
>> > A few years ago, in the Zachman Framework web-pages, this definition
>> was given: Architecture is the set of documents that ...
>> > I can't remember what the '...' was, but I'm pretty sure that that
>> definition was about as wrong as it's possible to be, just given the way it
>> started.
Of course everything depends on context. Like most projects, the original C3 had various critical features fixed before anyone started, including the most flexible dev environment ever.
The trick that many organisations miss is that often the best way to achieve what the stakeholders want (a degree of confidence in the result) is to do a minimum of validation and then get on with it. Actually making this work requires skill and flexibility, both of which tend to be lacking in enterprise situations.
I think it's reasonable for a dev team to say "this is how we do things" (that's what Energized Work do), as long as they can find consenting clients. Less sophisticated clients will need different teams.
> - make sure we can show the stakeholders that we have a clear idea of
> how their problem could be solved, and how our solution will fit within the
> rest of the enterprise system
> The last point is about an attitude I've seen in some XP teams that might
> say "we don't know how the system will be, we'll learn along the way" which
> might be true but is not what will get you the trust of the stakeholders.
I remember reading a definition of architecture that was something
like "decisions that would be too expensive to change". Anyone know
where that comes from?
--Nat
On 18 October 2012 13:04, J. B. Rainsberger <m...@jbrains.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Lance Walton
> <lance.c.wal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've been building software commercially now for almost 20 years, and the
>> longer I do it the less I understand what people mean by 'architecture'. Can
>> anybody define it for me, at least in the context of this thread?
