Architecture, by definition
Anyway, recently this article from the SEI ("Leading the world to a software-enriched society") came to my attention. The SEI offers this definition of "software architecture"
The software architecture of a program or computing system is the structure or structures of the system, which comprise software elements, the externally visible properties of those elements, and the relationships among them.This strikes me as a rather poor definition, since it means that, for example, I can extract some architecture from this program:
#include <stdio.h>int main (int argc, char** argv){
printf("Hello World\n");
return 0;
}This is source code to be compiled into a binary component intended for deployment into a container. There are many free and commercial implementations of this container, and there's a really great book that explains all about how the container instantiates components like this, wires them up to the other components they rely on (that #include <stdio.h> thing there is a bit of declarative configuration information that tells the container that this component is going to use some services from the stdio component) There's an entrypoint into the component that the container will recognise, and the component will indicate to the container using a standard value that it has completed its work successfully (whether it has or not, but when did you ever see anyone check the return value of printf?)Thus, my program, er, I mean component here has a structure composed of software elements, these have externally visible properties, and there are relationships among them. Obviously, then, this system is just dripping with architecture. Almost as much as this paragraph is with sarcasm.
This is not what anyone means by "architecture", but based on the SEI's definition it's hard to see why not. (Once upon a time, though, the facilities used by my component were a matter of live architectural discourse--but that sort of change over time is for another posting)
Distinctively Architectural
Now, this sort of problem happens all the time with definitions, which is why definitions suck for serious thinking about the world. The authors of the SEI article kind-of dodge coming right out and saying that, but they do instead adopt a much smarter stance and start to talk about what distinctions can usefully be drawn between "architecture", "design" and the rest.
Speaking of drawing, they note in passing that it is a source of confusion to use a notation primarily intended to capture design ideas (UML) to capture architectural ideas. Why do we keep shooting ourselves in the foot like this? Especially since, as an industry, we have plenty of alternatives that we could use. But I digress.
Well, the authors present, in fine consultant style, a 2 x 2 taxonomy (apparently it is the "underlying dynamic structure of 2 x 2 modeling that brings richness, depth and a uniquely transformational power to this simple form". Whatever) And of course, being architects, they call this taxonomy an "ontology". They might not have noticed that it's a 2 x 2 model, though, because they only give three terms. Using their distinctions intensional vs extensional and local vs non-local, the diagram they don't provide would look like this:
| Intensional | Extensional | |
|---|---|---|
| non-local | architecture | ??? |
| local | design | implementation |
Hmm, how fascinating! What is it that address non-local extensional thoughts? (Hey, maybe that's the uniquely transformational power doing its thing ;)
So, architecture is to do with what global constraints there are on how the parts of the system are chosen and assembled. I might be wrong but I'm guessing that anyone who writes for the SEI thinks that in general architectures come first and are somehow realised or filled in during design and implementation. That fits well with the idea that architectural ideas are extensional--they don't say how to build the system but they do say what general properties any system built to that architecture will have, what declarative constraints they all satisfy.
An Agile view Emerges
But what about the Agile setting? Well that's a broad church, so what specifically about the XP setting? In XP we first build a spike (very thin, goes from one end to the other) to learn about the essence of the problem/solution. Then we build out more thin vertical slices of functionality, refactoring as we go. Where's the architecture? If it is non-local then it can only become evident when there are enough of these slices in place for there to be anything that isn't local. And with test-driven development we very much proceed in an extensional fashion, filling iexplicitct cases one at a time, and discover the generalities through refactoring.
So the architecture (non-local, intensional) can only arise late in the game. It can only emerge.
Hypothesis for further investigation: the non-local extensional thing might just be the system metaphor, which is stated in quite concrete, explicit, albeit general, terms and is intended to apply to the whole system. And is stated early. If so, maybe the model presented in the SEI article helps explain why there are so many folks want the system metaphor to be instead of architecture and why they get disappointed when that doesn't work.
