Talk:Software architecture

message: In references "Software Architecture by Rick Kazman" is mentioned.
The closest match I could find on the net is this one:
Software Architecture in Practice, Second Edition
by Len Bass (Author), Paul Clements (Author), Rick Kazman (Author)
()
Kazman is the third author.  Is this the book mentioned in references?
Software Architecture - An Emerging Discipline
by Garlan and Shaw
Sujayg (talk) 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Software Architecture" book reference 

message: I've removed the following information since I fail to see why this particular book is important, there are tons of software architecture books, so why this one?
*Jeff Garland, Richard Anthony: Large-Scale Software Architecture : A Practical Guide using UML. Wiley 2003  (applies IEEE 1471 and UML to define a series of viewpoints useful for developing and documenting the architecture of large systems)
* Large Scale SW Architecture -- companion site to the book Large Scale Software Architecture (see above)
--S.K. 22:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large-Scale Software Architecture 

message: I've linked the "Structured" list item to "Structured System Analysis and Design". Somebody please check up on me, because I'm no expert on this topic.
--DugDownDeep 16:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structured Link 

message: What about something on the relationship between software architecture and software design? And software engineering? Is there a page on software development? Hmm, there is, but it redirects to software engineering. I don't like that. I think the whole computer software set of articles needs somewhat better organization. Brent 00:31:36, 2005-08-19 (UTC)
:I agree there should be something, but it's not entirely clear what yet.  Under software development were you looking for something like software development process? --David.alex.lamb 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship to other articles 

message: I've never heard of anyone claiming that software ontology is a superset of sofwtare architecture. System architecture and systems architecting yes, but not software ontology. Can anyone provide a reference to back up this claim? If not, I will delete it in a few days. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software ontology 

message: Any particular reason why "To Be Engineered" is in title case instead of lower case?  I cannot find any references using the specific term in title case.  Please let me know, just in case. Bwefler 18:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem has since been fixed -- thanks. Bwefler 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "To Be Engineered" 

message: I would like to see info on software architectural reviews, such as the Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM) (see the Wiki article link), and others such as the Cost-Benefit Analysis Method (CBAM), as covered in referenced book "Software Architecture in Practice" (Bass, Clements, Kazman).  (Such reviews seemed like the majority of an SWA course I took...)
Thanks. --Bwefler 13:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectural Reviews 

message: The current definition seems unclear to me. The part about "a representation of a software system, as well as the process and discipline for effectively implementing the design(s) for such a system" implies that an architecture also encompasses such things as SDLC, which is not the understanding of architecture I find in my source materials. --Stephen e nelson 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the problem may be that the current definition is perhaps conflating what a software architect produces (a "software architecture") with what a software architect does (which might also be called "software architecting"). The other problem is of course that the current definition is totally unreferenced... --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A paraphrase of Software Architecture In Practice p. 23 might do the job. How about: "A software architecture defines the software components of the system, their externally visible properties, and their relationships with one another." Still kind of a muddle, but at least a citeable one. --Stephen e nelson 01:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This SEI page has a pretty good collection of definitions from different sources. We can't really interpolate all of those definitions (that'd be original research). But the Software Architecture In Practice definition seems to me to be a pretty good distillation of the common elements in the different definitions. It's also the first definition given on the page, where it is identified as one of two "modern definitions" of software architecture. The other "modern" definition, from ANSI/IEEE Std 1471-2000, is roughly the same, but adds ...the principles governing [the system's] design and evolution... --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Went bold and changed to a rewritten intro paragraph referring to Bass. I think it's a less confusing introduction. Adding the reference to the specific page duplicates the reference to SAiP; I've left them both in since I agree that SAiP is a very good overall intro, but perhaps it should be moved to a "further reading" section? --Stephen e nelson 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a bit hesitant to edit this page given that I am sure people will disagree whatever it says. The already cited SEI page lists numerous definitions with varying degrees of authority. In my opinion the most authoritive one, and the one most often cited is that by the ANSI/IEEE Std 1471-2000 document. It not necessarily captures all relevant aspects (hence the other definitions) but it sort of represents a broad consensus (or at least the attempt to create such a thing) at least. A wikipedia specific definition without proper citation is the last thing the world needs. I'm in favour of citing both the IEEE definition and mentioning that this remains a hotly debated topic, along with a reference to the SEI page with definitions. Anything else would be biased in favor of someone's opinion. Unless wikipedia has a strong reason to deviate from the IEEE standard definition, it shouldn't. For better or for worse, the IEEE definition is the only widely endorsed definition available. True, software architecture in practice definition is also widely cited. I would argue that it is mostly the same as the IEEE definition and arguably they are closely related in their origin. The principles bit in the IEEE definition is quite relevant and does not contradict the other definition. It's also worth noting in the article that this definition remains a hotly debated topic at relevant conferences such as e.g. WICSA (working ifip conference on software architecture), much to the dismay of veteran attendees. Jillesvangurp 18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  The well-known definition of software architecture that appears in "Software Architecture in Practice" (Bass et al) is very often cited in the literature and presentations. However, this definition was revised (improved) by their authors and colleagues at the Software Engineering Institute. The revised definition appears in the 2nd edition of "Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond". I updated the page with this new definition. Pmerson (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The paragraph starting "Several languages..." makes a number of assertions that are not cited. I don't think that they belong in this article. Anyone have a problem with me removing them? --Stephen e nelson 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views caveats 

message: The Background section covers the definition of "system", the definition of "software architect", a good definition of a software architecture, the definition of a "robust software architecture", traceability between the architecture and other views of the system (requirements, system tests, etc.). All very good stuff, but I had to reread it three times before I understood the general thrust of the section. I think it needs a reorg and rewrite. Thoughts? --Stephen e nelson 18:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted for me. :) --Stephen e nelson 02:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think that the current first paragraph is good. I was referring to a previous one. :) --Stephen e nelson 17:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history is a bit incomplete. In my opinion, the 1992 article by Perry and Wolf kicked off the renewed interest in software architecture and largely defined the field. Dewayne E. Perry, Alexander L. Wolf, "Foundations for the study of software architecture", ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Volume 17, Issue 4, Pages: 40 - 52, 1992. Before then, software architecture was not a big topic in research or practice. Jillesvangurp 19:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: I guess a section on Software Architectural Styles need to be added to this article. Is it OK with everyone if I add it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamyar1 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectural Styles 

message: As great a word as "-ilities" is, "security" is unfortunately not an "-ility".
Proposed change:
make it "securitility" instead?
::ilities is just a generalization. Security is fine. In fact several times ilities is over used (as for example in securitility). If you talk about the software quality attribute security everyone knows what are you talking about. (IMHO)  Aludstartups (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "-ilities" pedantry 

message: I wonder why the mentioned architecture frameworks have been put in this  Software Architecture Page. Ideally other than the 4+1, rest of them are all related to the  Enterprise Architecture domain.  If anyone could clarify on this, it would be great. Else I would like to remove all the frameworks mentioned except 4 +1, RM-ODP and SMOF. 
Sai Geetha (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. However I think it is maybe even better to explain. Something like: Frameworks relate to the domain of software architecture are 4 +1, RM-ODP and SMOF... Other architectures such .... as relate to the field of Enterprise_architecture. I will give it a try in the article. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architecture Frameworks 

message: In the process of delinking a deleted page, I noticed what seemed to me off-topic WP:OR in section Views, and removed it. I also took in account the following statement from Talk:Notational bias: 
("The programming part" referred to following text:
) — Sebastian 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text from Views section 

message: Sadly I don't have the level of English to fix this but at least I want to make a point: Some people en the MIT and along with they several communities in the world thinks that non functional requirements is a "dysfunctional definition" due the fact that all quality attributes requirements even performance are functional... and there exists too constraints or restrictions. Not functional requirements are the union of both quality attributes requirements and constraint. And you can elicit and work with quality attributes requirements (throughout quality attribute scenarios) but constraint are just that constraint you can "balance" it. 
moreover quality attributes requirements need it own section I'll left the references: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/abstracts/reports/95tr021.cfm and of course kasman, clemments and garlan books on software architecture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aludstartups (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  about the dysfunctional meaning of functional requirements 

message: I saw two links to the same site (it is that really necessary).  A blog without posts since 2 year. And many journals and vendors blogs (ibm, ms) with explanations about software architecture truly different of the ones prayed for the SEI (I think we should follow the SEI teaching). Maybe for this journal we can create a page "journals_on_software_architecture" OR "resources_on_software_architecture" Aludstartups (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: On November 19, 2012, the members of the IFIP working group 2.10 on software architecture will start rolling out a complete overhaul of this page on Software Architecture, addressing many of the concerns expressed here.--PhilippeKruchten 15:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impending massive change to the Software Architecture page 

message: There has been no formal acceptance of the definition of architecture used in IEEE 1471 as applying to enterprise architecture by either ISO or IEEE. The committee said that it could be applied and that is all. 
--Mgoetsch9 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The misuse of IEEE 1471 as in Enterprise Architecture 

message: :While making some minor copy edits overall, I admit to:
::Removing two unreferenced sentences about documenting architectures formally versus informally.
::They seemed just badly out-of-date.  I also felt they gave the exact wrong impression to any budding software architects out there.
:Overall, this piece seems to be structured around the art of creating a systems software architecture for a stand-alone, highly proprietary, closed system.  If the outline was opened up a bit, perspective-wise, I wonder if people might find it easier to contribute new content about collaboration at even the architectural level, given the integrated nature of even proprietary software systems today, as well as anything open-source. 
::(PS - the phrase "document experience in a wikipage" was not me - I just decided to leave it there!)
:   Maura Driscoll (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 2 sentences about documenting the architecture 

message: The current article states: The term software architecture was first used in the late 1960s ,[13]..., referring to 
* P. Naur and B. Randell, Eds.,, ed. (1969.). "Software Engineering: Report of a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, 7-11 Oct. 1968.". Brussels: NATO, Scientific Affairs Division,. Retrieved 2012-11-16. 
However, it seems that this publication doesn't the term "Software architecture" or "architecture". -- Mdd (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a reference to the field of architecture in that publication, though: "software designers are in a similar position to architects and civil engineers...". I've changed the article text accordingly. --Rcdeboer (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use of the term software architecture  

message: In this section there are references to three RM-based tools Bauhaus Suite, SAVE and Structure 101. Why is Lattix Architect not allowed to be on this list? They are also an RM-based tool that compares high-level model provided by the system architect with what the source code says is the current architectural model.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbarow (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: An external link to Lattix is not allowed for the same reason that links to the other ones are not allowed (which in turn is the same reason I mentioned on your user talk page).  I have removed all the external links (and the associated text, since it wasn't referenced).  —Psychonaut (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Architecture Erosion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Software architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928035606/http://eden-study.org/articles/2003/icse03.pdf to http://www.eden-study.org/articles/2003/icse03.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928035606/http://eden-study.org/articles/2003/icse03.pdf to http://www.eden-study.org/articles/2003/icse03.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified