I enjoy blogs from Apiumtech; keep writing. Nirmalya, thank you for your comment! Thanks to followers like you we will continue on writing with more motivation. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Domotics with Home Assistant: concepts. Apiumhub becomes React Summit partner.
Trunk-based Development. The importance of a good software architecture. Lea Karam August 9, Software architecture good software architecture , importance of software architecture , maintainability , Performance , Scalability.
Share This Post. Share on facebook. Share on linkedin. Share on twitter. Share on email. Table of Contents. A software product line or family is a set of software-intensive systems sharing a common, managed set of features that satisfy the specific needs of a particular market segment or mission and that are developed from a common set of core assets in a prescribed way.
Chief among these core assets is the architecture that was designed to handle the needs of the entire family. Product line architects choose an architecture or a family of closely related architectures that will serve all envisioned members of the product line by making design decisions that apply across the family early and by making other decisions that apply only to individual members late.
The architecture defines what is fixed for all members of the product line and what is variable. Software product lines represent a powerful approach to multi-system development that shows order-of-magnitude payoffs in time to market, cost, productivity, and product quality. The power of architecture lies at the heart of the paradigm. Similar to other capital investments, the architecture for a product line becomes a developing organization's core asset.
Software product lines are explained in Chapter 14 , and case studies of product lines are given in Chapters 15 and Whereas earlier software paradigms focused on programming as the prime activity, with progress measured in lines of code, architecture-based development often focuses on composing or assembling elements that are likely to have been developed separately, even independently, from each other.
This composition is possible because the architecture defines the elements that can be incorporated into the system. It constrains possible replacements or additions according to how they interact with their environment, how they receive and relinquish control, what data they consume and produce, how they access data, and what protocols they use for communication and resource sharing.
One key aspect of architecture is its organization of element structure, interfaces, and operating concepts. The most significant principle of this organization is interchangeability. In , Eli Whitney's mass production of muskets, based on the principle of interchangeable parts, signaled the dawn of the Industrial Age.
In the days before reliable physical measurements, this was a daunting notion. Today in software, until abstractions can be reliably delimited, the notion of structural interchangeability is just as daunting and just as significant. Commercial off-the-shelf components, subsystems, and compatible communications interfaces all depend on the principle of interchangeability. However, there is much about software development through composition that remains unresolved. When the components that are candidates for importation and re-use are distinct subsystems that have been built with conflicting architectural assumptions, unanticipated complications can increase the effort required to integrate their functions.
David Garlan and his colleagues coined the term architectural mismatch to describe this situation. As useful architectural patterns and design patterns are collected, it becomes clear that, although computer programs can be combined in more or less infinite ways, there is something to be gained by voluntarily restricting ourselves to a relatively small number of choices when it comes to program cooperation and interaction.
That is, we wish to minimize the design complexity of the system we are building. Advantages to this approach include enhanced re-use, more regular and simpler designs that are more easily understood and communicated, more capable analysis, shorter selection time, and greater interoperability. Properties of software design follow from the choice of architectural pattern.
System Architecture versus Software Architecture Over the past 5 to 10 years, we have had many occasions to give talks on software architecture. Invariably, a question comes from the audience along the lines of "Why are you talking about software architecture?
Isn't system architecture just as important? In fact, there is little difference, as we will see. But we mostly talk about software architecture because we want to stress the crucial nature of the software decisions that an architect makes concerning overall product quality.
In creating a software architecture, system considerations are seldom absent. If you want an architecture that is highly reliable, again you will be concerned with the hardware, in this case with its failure rates and the availability of redundant processing or network devices.
On it goes. Considerations of hardware are seldom far from the mind of the architect. So, when you design a software architecture, you will probably need to think about the entire system-the hardware as well as the software. To do otherwise would be foolhardy.
No engineer can be expected to make predictions about the characteristics of a system when only part of that system is specified. But still we persist in speaking about software architecture primarily, and not system architecture. Why is this? Because most of the architect's freedom is in the software choices, not in the hardware choices.
It is not that there are no hardware choices to be made, but these may be out of the architect's control for example, when creating a system that needs to work on arbitrary client machines on the Internet or specified by others for reasons of economics, legal issues, or compliance with standards ; or they will likely change over time. For this reason, we feel justified in focusing on the software portion of architecture, for this is where the most fundamental decisions are made, where the greatest freedoms reside, and where there are the greatest opportunities for success or disaster!
An architecture embodies design decisions about how elements interact that, while reflected in each element's implementation, can be localized and written just once. Templates can be used to capture in one place the inter-element interaction mechanisms.
For instance, a template can encode the declarations for an element's public area where results will be left, or can encode the protocols that the element uses to engage with the system executive. There are four distinct types of software architecture from an enterprise point of view that can be classified into business, application, information, and information technology architectures: Business architecture , as the term specifies, revolves around business strategy and noteworthy business functions within an entity or enterprise.
Benefits of Software Architecture That being said, listed below are noteworthy benefits: Creates a robust platform for your software project. Allows room for necessary upgrades. Heightens the performance of your system.
Remains cost-effective while managing duplication of codes. Analyzes IT factual and identifying areas of change to reduce costs. Maintains codes effectively using existing software.
Allows for quick transformation time to meet constantly developing business demands. Brings heightened quality to software platform. Manages complexity efficiently. Speeds up the platform. Increases adaptability to technical features. Hopefully some valuable pillars can be distilled out of this to help in the ongoing thought processes that make up this practice. A key skill every software architect needs is effective prioritization.
Appreciate that there is always more to do, so focus on the highest-priority items that will provide the most value. Here, value means both in terms of immediate return, and in the future; avoiding significant costs if major changes are needed down the line.
Be adaptable. Prove out concepts ahead of time when dealing with contentious ideas, requirements or solutions, to objectively find the best way forward. Understand that proven concepts can be invalidated if assumptions significantly change. Iterate; revisit previous decisions once new information comes to light. Renegotiate with key stakeholders if decisions need to fundamentally change so that greater balance can get reached.
Renegotiate as early as possible to avoid further waste. Keep stakeholder communication active. Software architecture should not be an ivory tower concept — treating it as such only creates barriers and reduces communication, which make it much more challenging to achieve success.
Keep up to date with modern patterns and principles, but be able to spot similarities with older ideas. It is rare that a concept is Truly New in software architecture — although many software engineers who have recently entered the profession would like to think otherwise! Good architecture practices are as much about gaining wisdom than anything else.
Design and build things. Ship them to real users. Importantly, find fun in the craft!
0コメント