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

Re: Agile Architecture - Follow-Up

Expand Messages
  • Scott Ambler
    I have a few thoughts about architecture at http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/agileArchitecture.htm and the primary message is to keep things as simple as
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 2, 2007
      I have a few thoughts about architecture at
      http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/agileArchitecture.htm and the
      primary message is to keep things as simple as possible. From your
      discussion I suspect that you might be over-complicating things or
      looking for a more complicated solution than you really need.

      At http://www.agilemodeling.com/essays/initialArchitectureModeling.htm
      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.

      - Scott
    • Matt Heusser
      ... 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
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 2, 2007
        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.