Talk:Software architecture

Standards Organizations

There are many standards orgs, including the IEEE, ISO, and others.

"Software Architecture" book reference

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) (ISBN 0321154959)

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)

Large-Scale Software Architecture

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 ISBN 0-470-84849-9 (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)

Reference to creativity?

Reference to creativity is noticeably missing

Structured Link

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)

Examples

The Examples don't distinguish between inter-application architectures (or systems using different processes, even computers, with inter-process communication), like peer-to-peer and client-server, and intra-application architectures. Seems like a significant architectural distinction worth highlighting, to me. In fact, why not consider the difference between inter-app and intra-app architectures in the article?

Relationship to other articles

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)

Software ontology

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)

"To Be Engineered"

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)

Problem has since been fixed -- thanks. Bwefler 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the need for software architecture is a key issue to be addressed ; like "Why is Software Architecture needed". Some people still think that once you understand what the requirement document says, you have understood it all. Maybe at some point of time I shall writing on this. Sujayg (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Architectural Reviews

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)

• FYI such reviews are ways to verify the architecture. --Bwefler 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Views caveats

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)

Background

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)

Digging in further: the entire first paragraph is a definition of "system". Since the article is specifically about software architecture, I don't see how it advances the cause. I'm going to delete it in 5 days unless someone has a defense of it or a suggestion on how to rewrite it. --Stephen e nelson 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted for me. :) --Stephen e nelson 02:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph has a specific reference for the definition, and a reliable, respectable, and publically available secondary citation for it as well. See http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/ accessed 16 Sep 2009. In my mind that is sufficient defence to support keeping it largely intact, although it doesn't preclude an overall article rewrite for better organization and clarity. ThreePD 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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).

Architectural Styles

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).

"-ilities" pedantry

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)

Distinction between pattern and style

Without any explanation the terms pattern and style are used together as section headline in this article. But where are the differences? I know there are some but not sure where. I would be very happy if anybody could clarify this issue.

Architecture Frameworks

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)

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)

Removal of text from Views section

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 is nonsense. If you use a hammer instead of a chair trying to put a nail in the wall you don't have a "pro-hammer bias", you just use the best available tool. If a language would not support lists of integers, but you happen to need one and hash tables (strange enough) are available, using them would not be a bias but probably a rational choice. If you'd use hash tables and there are faster, simpler, etc. options it still wouldn't be a bias but just a lack of knowledge in which case the rational thing to do would still be to use hash tables. The music example sounds better, but still doesn't really convince me of the actual existence of this bias. The questionnaire example isn't a bias, if people must choose between A and B and the best option would be C, they do know that C is not there. It's just a bad questionnaire instead of people changing their minds to think A or B. Joepnl (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

("The programming part" referred to following text:

Computer programming languages provide another example. Each programming language provides a notation which can introduce a bias in how problem solving is approached. For example, if a programming language makes it easy to notate a hash table then hash tables are more likely to feature in the programmer's articulation of the algorithm used to solve a problem.

) — Sebastian 17:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

about the dysfunctional meaning of functional requirements

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)

External Links

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)

Impending massive change to the Software Architecture page

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kruchten (talk • contribs) 154.20.102.189 (talk) 14:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Major overhaul of the Software Architecture page

On November 19, 2012, members of the IFIP working group 2.10 on software architecture have produced a complete overhaul of this page. The subgroup working on the wikipedia page is composed of: Remco de Boer, Ivica Crnkovic, Len Bass, Antony Tang, Philippe Kruchten, Henry Muccini, Eltjo Poort, Tomi Männistö, Eoin Woods, Christina Cooper-Bland, Muhamad Ali Babar, and Rich Hilliard.

Comments are welcome, preferably in this Talk page.

On December 10, 2012, the group will meet to do a review of the changes, and implement further refinements.

PhilippeKruchten 15:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phillipe, I welcome this kind of cooperation. To give you my review of the changes, I have first wikified the article once more, see here. I will try to explain both:

1. As you can see I simplified the structure and rearranged it into the common structure for a Wikipedia articles, that offer and overview of a field of technology. A reference here is the Electrical engineering, which is a featured Wikipedia article for over five years.
2. A good Wikipedia article on a difficult technological subject, should first make a significant effort trying to explain what is it?, before explaining how it is developed in time? Now both the previous and the current article lacks a more simple description on what it is.
3. This second point is also a problem in related articles: in the article "Software" section Software#Architecture and in the Architecture framework article.
4. This article might still be to technical. The first sentence starts with: The software architecture of a system is the set of structures needed to reason about the software system.... This could/should be explained some more in the first section.
5. The historical development could be divided in subsections, and give some more general introduction and main events
6. The "Software architecture topics" should give an overview of all relevant subjects. Part of the subjects, where moved away which I restored. You could ask, if all relevant (sub)topics are listed?
7. The new sections Architecture activities and (software) architecture supporting activities are a mayor improvement to the article.
8. At the moment I see little added value of the new Software architecture description article
9. The "Examples of architectural styles and patterns" could use some more general introduction
10. The whole article could use some more illustrations.

I hope this helps you get some ideas about further improving of this article. -- Mdd (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The misuse of IEEE 1471 as in Enterprise Architecture

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)

That statement is incorrect.

IEEE's "formal acceptance" of IEEE 1471, was on 21 September 2000: "acceptance" means acceptance of all of the text in the Standard. The scope of the Standard – as accepted and published – was: "architecture description of software-intensive systems". The text of the Standard – as accepted and published – clearly includes enterprise:

As used in the Standard, "the term system encompasses individual applications, systems in the traditional sense, subsystems, systems of systems, product lines, product families, whole ENTERPRISES, and other aggregations of interest." (4.1 of IEEE 1471:2000)

So from the earliest publication, enterprise architecture was included in the scope of application.

IEEE 1471 became an ANSI national standard (in the US) – with the same scope and text – August 2001.

ISO adopted IEEE 1471 via a fast-track ballot in March 2006 – with the identical scope and text – published as ISO/IEC 42010.

RfHilliard (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Software Architecture vs. Software Architecture

ANSI/IEEE Std 1471-2000, ISO 42010 only applies to software architecture documentation. Clements and Bass talk about this in the latest edition of the their book "Software Architecture in Practice". Taylor and Medividovic in "Software Architecture: Foundations, Theory, and Practice" do the Academic Treatment referring to it only as "interesting" (i.e. academic for not being complete).

--Mgoetsch9 (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence is incorrect:

(i) ANSI/IEEE 1471 is now withdrawn, replaced by ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010

(ii) the scope of that standard was never limited to software architecture. See Talk discussion item above.

Can you make your citations more specific?

I cannot find what you claim in Bass et al. (3rd edition).

Cf. discussion of ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 page 360 and a short discussion of relation of software and enterprise architecture, pages 7-8.

Or in Taylor et al's book, cf. pages 68 and 627-628.

RfHilliard (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed 2 sentences about documenting the architecture

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)

First use of the term software architecture

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)

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Software architecture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk · contribs) 11:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I beginning review of this article. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

First look

• There is a prominent cite error. The name "SAP2" is defined multiple times with different content.
• Multiple dead links need to be corrected:

• Ref 12. SARA Work Group (2002). "SARA Report". A WebCite archive is available
• Ref 23. Software Architecture Review and Assessment (SARA) Report. A WebCite archive is available
• Raw link in Software architecture erosion: "...and DCL (from Federal University of Minas Gerais)..."
• External link: Architectural Patterns

• Where did you obtain a time machine to get the book published in 2994? See Ref 31.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, no action requested: The first non-stub version of this article used British spelling, but the article has evolved to use American spelling. The switch in languages having evolved by consensus, I am asking for no changes. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Obvious copyvio, but they copied us, not the other way around. Nothing to worry about. See the Software Architecture article on Physicswiki.net. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Contracted word in Design section: "There aren't rules or guidelines that fit all cases..." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

All issues listed under 'First look' have been resolved --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Lede

• "It is the set of structures needed to reason about the software system." Unclear pronoun antecedent. Try some sort of rewording such as "The structures are those needed to reason..."
• "the systems that controlled the space shuttle launch vehicle have the requirement of being very fast, and very reliable, in principle." What is the phrase "in principle" supposed to mean? Also, excess comma. Try something like "the systems that controlled the space shuttle launch vehicle had the requirement of being very fast and very reliable."
• "Similarly, multiple redundant independently produced copies..." Words such as "Furthermore" or "In addition" would work better than "Similarly."
• "i.e., which are used to 'house' the more changeable elements of the program" Using scare quotes around "house" does not make the usage any clearer. Also, the antecedent of "which" is not quite clear. Try "i.e., structural choices which constitute a framework for the more changeable elements of the program" or some other such rewording.
• "stakeholders" Reader following wikilink has to wade through a considerable amount of irrelevant material. Try drilling down to the relevant section, i.e. stakeholders

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

All issues listed under 'Lede' have been resolved. --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Scope

• The design of the presentation in this section, which contrasts summarized views of different sources, necessitates rigorous accuracy of the summaries of the cited sources with no inadvertent WP:OR which could result in misrepresentation of the sources.

• "Overall, macroscopic system structure;[5] this refers to architecture as a higher level abstraction of a software system that consists of high-level components and connectors, as opposed to implementation details." I do not see how the expression "high-level components and connectors" comes from a reading of the indicated reference.

• Fix Adapted the text to remain closer to the primary study: "this refers to architecture as a higher level abstraction of a software system that consists of a collection of computational components together with connectors that describe the interaction between these components." --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "The important stuff—whatever that is;[6] this refers to the fact that software architects should concern themselves with those decisions that have high impact on the system and its stakeholders—which may include apparently low-level details." This starts off with a direct quote from Fowler. However, where does Fowler state that architects should concern themselves with "apparently low-level details"? Please truncate after the dash.

• Fix as suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcdeboer (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "That which is fundamental to understanding a system in its environment"[7]" Good paraphrase that does not misrepresent the ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 Website.
• "Things that people perceive as hard to change;[6] since designing the architecture takes place at the beginning of a software system's lifecycle, the architect should focus on decisions that "have to" be right the first time, since reversing such decisions may be impossible or prohibitively expensive." After comparing with the source, it appears to me that the part of this statement that begins, "...since reversing such decisions..." represents WP:OR. Please truncate.

• Fix I removed the second part of this statement, and replaced it with a text that remains closer to Fowler's line of thought (from the primary study) on overcoming irreversibility: "...should focus on decisions that "have to" be right the first time. Following this line of thought, architectural design issues may become non-architectural once their irreversibility can be overcome." --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "A set of architectural design decisions;[8] software architecture should not be considered merely a set of models or structures, but should include the decisions that lead to these particular structures, and the rationale behind them. This insight has led to substantial research into software architecture knowledge management.[9]" Since the entire book is about software architecture knowledge management, I'm "sort of" OK with citing the entire book, but it would be better if you narrowed the citation to the introductory chapter of the book.

• I'll get back to this --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• "There is no sharp distinction between software architecture versus design and requirements engineering (see Related fields below). They are all part of a "chain of intentionality" from high-level intentions to low-level details.[10]" Please refine the citation. Do not cite an entire book in support of a single statement. The expression is found in chapter 2, page 18.

• Fix Refined both references to Fairbanks' book (coincidentally, both references trace to page 18). --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A different manner of presenting the material in this section would not have required me to be so picky. However, if you seek to contrast and compare different points of view, you must not misrepresent them.

A response is necessary. I will be placing the GA review on hold until somebody addresses the issues that I have raised so far. Due to the technical nature of this article, reviewing it properly requires a considerable commitment on my part, and I would like to see somebody address my concerns as I raise them. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Characteristics

• Reference 3 "Software Architecture In Practice, Third Edition. Boston: Addison-Wesley. pp. 21–24" is cited eight times in the article. Pages 21-24 comprise the Summary, For Further Reading, and Discussion questions of Chapter 1. Citation usages a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h all appear to be supported by pages in this book, but not in pages 21 through 24. Consider using Template:Rp or any of the other means of individual page citation.

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "the established way...is by separating the concerns" Try "is to separate"

Fixed as suggested --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Quality-driven not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Recurring styles Citation?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Conceptual integrity Citation?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Motivation

• "Software architecture is an "intellectually graspable" abstraction of a complex system.[3]" Not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "It supports early design decisions that impact a system's development, deployment, and maintenance life." Not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "It facilitates communication with stakeholders, contributing to a system that better fulfills their needs" Not supported by pages 21-24

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Software architecture helps to reduce risks and chance of failure.[10](p18)" Not supported in page 18

Direct quote from p.18: "It is important to pay attention to software architecture because of its impact on your systems. When you choose it deliberately, you reduce your risks and chance of failure." --Rcdeboer (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

OK. I missed that. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• "It enables cost reduction." Citation?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

History

• "Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline" ISBN?

Fixed --Rcdeboer (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay -- Family matters. I will try to finish the review quickly. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Architecture activities

• File:SoftwareArchitectureActivities.jpg is a very thinly disguised version of Figure 10 from Hofmeister et al. 2006 and as such constitutes plagiarism.
• Hofmeister et al. 2006 mentions software evolution, but does not support the assertion that it is a core activity. Please replace with appropriate reference.
• File:SoftwareArchitectureActivities.jpg shows three core activities, but the text describes four.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have nominated File:SoftwareArchitectureActivities.jpg for deletion. Please replace with a better figure.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• The file has been deleted; I'm working on a possible replacement. --Rcdeboer (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Query

It has been three weeks since the last edit here. Stigmatella aurantiaca, Rcdeboer, where does the review and its progress stand? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Given that neither nominator nor reviewer has edited Wikipedia since mid-November, and issues clearly still remain, I am going to allow one further week for the outstanding issues to be addressed (notably those in Architecture activities)—I'm putting the nomination on hold. If nothing is done in those seven days, the nomination will be closed. If progress is made over the next week, then we should probably find a new reviewer, since the review has not yet touched on the Software architecture topics or Related fields section. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I think you should go ahead and fail this. Issues don't seem to have been resolved, and both editors have not edited for over a month. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Closing GA review as unsuccessful. The nominator should feel free to renominate this article once the remaining issues have been resolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Software Architecture Erosion

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)

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)

Thank you. I appreciate that. While I think that references to RM-based tools (external) are useful information in this article, I understand your policy against external links and was only asking that it be applied fairly and uniformly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbarow (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This sentence does not read well

This statement, due to the comma near the end and the singular "system" in the end does not read well:
     Software architecture refers to the high level structures of a software system, the discipline of creating such structures, and system.

I suggest changing it to:
     Software architecture refers to the high level structures of a software system and the discipline of creating such structures and systems.