Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

136293Re: Agile Architecture - Follow-Up

Expand Messages
  • Matt Heusser
    Nov 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Scott Ambler wrote:
      > From your discussion I suspect that you might
      >be over-complicating things or looking for a more
      >complicated solution than you really need.
      >....
      >I describe how to do a bit of architecture
      >envisioning at the beginning of a project
      >to get you going in the right technical
      >direction. You can do architecture modeling
      >without it turning into some form of ivory
      >tower documentation effort.
      >

      Did I miss an email chain? Your statements here seem to assume that we
      share some agreement on what architecture *is*.

      My point was that we do not, in fact, share such agreement.

      In general, I'm for simplest design that could possibly work, design as you
      go, and good designs often mean delaying decisions as long as possible.
      (Example: "Apache or IIS?" "Well, if we use this component stack, we don't
      have to decide now, we could support both ...")

      I am not supportive of using terms like "quality" or "architecture" without
      first explaining what we mean.

      Or is this a response to someone else's post?

      Regards,

      --
      Matthew Heusser,
      Blog: http://xndev.blogspot.com

      "Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity
      resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to
      especially harsh scrutiny � and also in a willingness to revise or abandon
      your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)."
      - Stephen Jay Gould


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 4 messages in this topic