RE: Where do we find software architecture?

I agree that sometimes "software happens" and that you can later document
its architecture. But here are a few questions:
1. Would you agree that the "architecture" for web services is not yet fully
developed?
2. Do you agree that this group is tasked with developing an architecture
for web services?
3. Developing an architecture (even though it might not be perfect) that
represents the **full scope** of what you want build is better than having
an inmcomplete architecture that only represents what currently exists to
guide the building of the solution?

If you agree, then I assert that we would be foolish if we did not look at
other existing **achitectures** (even though the solutions might not yet be
built or proven) as well as existing solutions. Otherwise we will lose out
on the many hours of thought that went into their construction.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:24 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Where do we find software architecture?


On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 06:40:12PM -0700, Burdett, David wrote:
> Does this make sense?

I think that describes the typical waterfall model.  But sometimes
software happens without an architecture document, and at that point,
the architecture *exists*, it just hasn't been written down.  So maybe
you start writing it down at some point, so that you have something
to work from, to give you a base from which to reason about the value
of particular extensions or uses/misuses.

At least that's how I see it.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 15:08:22 UTC