Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Add: page, bibcode. Removed URL that duplicated identifier. Removed access-date with no URL. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Headbomb | Linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Sandbox | #UCB_webform_linked 500/967 |
|||
| (39 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|High level structures of a software system}}
{{Software development process}}
'''Software architecture''' is the set of structures needed to reason about a [[software system]] and the discipline of creating such structures and systems. Each structure comprises software elements, relations among them, and properties of both elements and relations.<ref name="DSA2">{{cite book |last=Clements |first=Paul |title=Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond, Second Edition |author2=Felix Bachmann |author3=Len Bass |author4=David Garlan |author5=James Ivers |author6=Reed Little |author7=Paulo Merson |author8=Robert Nord |author9=Judith Stafford |publisher=Addison-Wesley |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-321-55268-6 |___location=Boston |language=en-US |author3-link=Len Bass}}</ref>
The ''architecture'' of a software system is a [[metaphor]], analogous to the [[architecture]] of a building.<ref name="PERRY1992">{{Cite journal | last1 = Perry | first1 = D. E. | last2 = Wolf | first2 = A. L. | author-link2 = Alexander L. Wolf| doi = 10.1145/141874.141884 | title = Foundations for the study of software architecture | journal = [[ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes]]| volume = 17 | issue = 4 | pages = 40 | year = 1992 | url = http://users.ece.utexas.edu/~perry/work/papers/swa-sen.pdf| citeseerx = 10.1.1.40.5174 | s2cid = 628695 }}</ref> It functions as the blueprints for the system and the development project, which [[project management]] can later use to extrapolate the tasks necessary to be executed by the teams and people involved.
Software architecture is about making fundamental structural choices that are costly to change once implemented. Software architecture choices include specific structural options from possibilities in [[Software design|the design of the software]]. There are two fundamental laws in software architecture:<ref>{{Cite book |title=Head First Software Architecture |publisher=O'Reilly Media |year=2024 |isbn=978-1098134358}}</ref><ref name="O'Reilly Media">{{Cite book |title=Fundamentals of Software Architecture: An Engineering Approach |publisher=O'Reilly Media |year=2020 |isbn=978-1492043454}}</ref>
# Everything is a trade-off
# "Why is more important than how"
"Architectural Kata" is a teamwork which can be used to produce an architectural solution that fits the needs. Each team extracts and prioritizes architectural characteristics (aka [[Non-functional requirement|non functional requirements]]) then models the components accordingly. The team can use [[C4 model|C4 Model]] which is a flexible method to model the architecture just enough. Note that synchronous communication between architectural components, entangles them and they must share the same architectural characteristics. <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
[[Software documentation|Documenting software]] architecture facilitates communication between [[Stakeholder (corporate)#In management|stakeholders]], captures early decisions about the high-level design, and allows the reuse of design components between projects.<ref name="SAP2">{{cite book|last=Bass|first=Len|author2=Paul Clements |author3=Rick Kazman |title=Software Architecture in Practice, Third Edition|publisher = Addison-Wesley|year=2012|___location=Boston|isbn=978-0-321-81573-6}}</ref>{{rp|29–35}}
Software architecture design is commonly juxtaposed with [[software application design]]. Whilst application design focuses on the design of the processes and data supporting the required functionality (the services offered by the system), software architecture design focuses on designing the infrastructure within which application functionality can be realized and executed such that the functionality is provided in a way which meets the system's [[non-functional requirement]]s.
Software architectures can be categorized into two main types: [[Monolithic application|monolith]] and [[Distributed computing|distributed architecture]], each having its own subcategories.<ref name="O'Reilly Media"/>
Software architecture tends to become more complex over time. [[Software architect]]s should use "[[fitness function]]s" to [[Continuous design|continuously]] keep the architecture in check.<ref name="O'Reilly Media"/>
[[File:Software Architecture Activities.jpg|thumb|Software architecture activities]]
Line 25 ⟶ 32:
There is no sharp distinction between software architecture versus design and requirements engineering (see [[#Related fields|Related fields]] below). They are all part of a "chain of intentionality" from high-level intentions to low-level details.<ref name="FAIRBANKS2010">{{cite book|author=George Fairbanks|title=Just Enough Software Architecture|year=2010|publisher=Marshall & Brainerd}}</ref>{{rp|18}}
== Software architecture style vs. software architecture pattern ==
{{Main article|List of software architecture styles and patterns}}'''Software Architecture Pattern''' refers to a reusable, proven solution to a recurring problem at the system level, addressing concerns related to the overall structure, component interactions, and quality attributes of the system. Software architecture patterns operate at a higher level of abstraction than software [[Software design pattern|design patterns]], solving broader system-level challenges. While these patterns typically affect system-level concerns, the distinction between architectural patterns and architectural styles can sometimes be blurry. Examples include [[Circuit breaker design pattern|Circuit Breaker]]. <ref name="O'Reilly Media2">{{Cite book |title=Fundamentals of Software Architecture: An Engineering Approach |publisher=O'Reilly Media |year=2020 |isbn=978-1492043454}}</ref><ref name=":0">{{Cite book |title=Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software |isbn=978-0201633610 |last1=Larman |first1=Craig |date=2005 |publisher=Pearson Deutschland GmbH }}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite book |title=Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture |isbn=978-0321127426}}</ref>
'''Software Architecture Style''' refers to a high-level structural organization that defines the overall system organization, specifying how components are organized, how they interact, and the constraints on those interactions. Architecture styles typically include a vocabulary of component and connector types, as well as semantic models for interpreting the system's properties. These styles represent the most coarse-grained level of system organization. Examples include [[Multitier architecture|Layered Architecture]], [[Microservices]], and [[Event-driven architecture|Event-Driven Architecture]]. <ref name="O'Reilly Media2" /><ref name=":0" /><ref name=":1" />
== Anti-patterns ==
The following architectural [[Anti-pattern|anti-patterns]] can arise when [[Software architect|architects]] make decisions. These anti-patterns often follow a progressive sequence, where resolving one may lead to the emergence of another. <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
* An architect may delay or avoid making architectural decisions due to the fear of choosing incorrectly. To address this, ongoing and close collaboration with the development team is often necessary, with architectural choices being adjusted based on their feedback. Additionally, decisions are typically made at the "last responsible moment," ensuring there is enough information to justify and validate the decision, while avoiding unnecessary delays that could lead to [[analysis paralysis]] and hinder the team's progress. <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
* Another anti-pattern can arise when architectural decisions are forgotten, not documented, or not understood, leading to repeated discussions without resolution. This often occurs when email is used to communicate architectural decisions. To address these challenges, [[Software architect|architects]] typically provide both technical and business justifications (often related to cost, user satisfaction, and time to market) in a single record of the architectural decision (usually an Architecture Decision Record). This record can be maintained in an accessible repository, such as a wiki. Communication via email focuses on the nature and context of the change and is directed only to relevant stakeholders, with a link to the centralized record. This ensures there is always a single updated source of truth. Additionally, if an architectural decision does not offer tangible business value, or if the business value is misaligned with business stakeholders, it may need to be reconsidered. <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
== Characteristics ==
Software architecture exhibits the following:
Line 34 ⟶ 52:
'''Quality-driven:''' classic [[software design]] approaches (e.g. [[Jackson Structured Programming]]) were driven by required functionality and the flow of data through the system, but the current insight<ref name="SAP2"/>{{rp|26–28}} is that the architecture of a software system is more closely related to its [[quality attributes]] such as [[fault-tolerance]], [[backward compatibility]], [[extensibility]], [[reliability (engineering)|reliability]], [[maintainability]], [[availability]], security, usability, and other such –[[ilities]]. Stakeholder concerns often translate into [[requirements]] on these quality attributes, which are variously called [[non-functional requirements]], extra-functional requirements, behavioral requirements, or quality attribute requirements.
'''Recurring styles:''' like building architecture, the software architecture discipline has developed standard ways to address recurring concerns. These "standard ways" are called by various names at various levels of abstraction. Common terms for recurring solutions are architectural style,<ref name="FAIRBANKS2010"/>{{rp|273–277}} tactic,<ref name="SAP2"/>{{rp|70–72}} [[reference architecture]] and [[architectural pattern]].<ref name="REFARCHPRIMER">{{cite web |url=http://www.gaudisite.nl/ReferenceArchitecturePrimerPaper.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111219235909/http://www.gaudisite.nl/ReferenceArchitecturePrimerPaper.pdf |archive-date=2011-12-19 |url-status=live |title=A Reference Architecture Primer |last1=Muller |first1=Gerrit |date=August 20, 2007 |website=Gaudi site |access-date=November 13, 2015}}</ref><ref name="REFARCHCLASS">{{cite book |last1=Angelov |first1=S. |last2=Grefen |first2=P. |last3=Greefhorst |first3=D. |title=2009 Joint Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture & European Conference on Software Architecture |chapter=A classification of software reference architectures: Analyzing their success and effectiveness
'''Conceptual integrity:''' a term introduced by [[Fred Brooks]] in his 1975 book ''[[The Mythical Man-Month]]'' to denote the idea that the architecture of a software system represents an overall vision of what it should do and how it should do it. This vision should be separated from its implementation. The architect assumes the role of "keeper of the vision", making sure that additions to the system are in line with the architecture, hence preserving [[The Mythical Man-Month#Conceptual integrity|conceptual integrity]].<ref name="BROOKS">{{cite book | last=Brooks | first=Frederick P. Jr. |date=1975|title=The Mythical Man-Month – Essays on Software Engineering |publisher=Addison-Wesley |isbn=978-0-201-00650-6|title-link=The Mythical Man-Month }}</ref>{{rp|41–50}}
'''Cognitive constraints:''' An observation first made in a 1967 paper by computer programmer [[Melvin Conway]] that organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.melconway.com/Home/Conways_Law.html|title=Conway's Law|last=Conway|first=Melvin|website=Mel Conway's Home Page|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190929004831/http://www.melconway.com/Home/Conways_Law.html|archive-date=2019-09-29|access-date=2019-09-29}}</ref> Fred Brooks introduced it to a wider audience when he cited the paper and the idea in ''The Mythical Man-Month'', calling it [[Conway's law|
== Motivation ==
Line 63 ⟶ 81:
==History==
The comparison between software design and (civil) architecture was first drawn in the late 1960s,<ref>{{cite web |editor1=P. Naur |editor2=B. Randell |title=Software Engineering: Report of a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee, Garmisch, Germany, 7–11 Oct. 1968 |publisher=NATO, Scientific Affairs Division |___location=Brussels |year=1969 |url=http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/nato1968.PDF |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030607182458/http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/brian.randell/NATO/nato1968.PDF |archive-date=2003-06-07 |url-status=live |access-date=2012-11-16}}</ref> but the term "software architecture" did not see widespread usage until the 1990s.<ref>{{Cite journal|author1=P. Kruchten |author2=H. Obbink |author3=J. Stafford |title=The past, present and future of software architecture|journal=IEEE Software |volume=23 |issue=2 |pages=22 |year=2006|doi=10.1109/MS.2006.59 |bibcode=2006ISoft..23b..22K |s2cid=2082927 }}</ref> The field of [[computer science]] had encountered problems associated with complexity since its formation.<ref>{{cite web|author=University of Waterloo|title= A Very Brief History of Computer Science |url=http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/Courses/134/history.html |year=2006|access-date=2006-09-23}}</ref> Earlier problems of complexity were solved by developers by choosing the right [[data structure]]s, developing [[algorithm]]s, and by applying the concept of [[separation of concerns]]. Although the term "software architecture" is relatively new to the industry, the fundamental principles of the field have been applied sporadically by [[software engineering]] pioneers since the mid-1980s. Early attempts to capture and explain software architecture of a system were imprecise and disorganized, often characterized by a set of box-and-line [[diagram]]s.<ref>{{Cite journal|website=IEEE.org|title= Introduction to the Special Issue on Software Architecture |year=2006|doi= 10.1109/TSE.1995.10003 }}</ref>
Software architecture as a concept has its origins in the research of [[Edsger Dijkstra]] in 1968 and [[David Parnas]] in the early 1970s. These scientists emphasized that the structure of a software system matters and getting the structure right is critical. During the 1990s there was a concerted effort to define and codify fundamental aspects of the discipline, with research work concentrating on architectural styles ([[patterns]]), [[architecture description language]]s, [[Software documentation#Architecture design documentation|architecture documentation]], and [[formal method]]s.<ref>{{cite web|author=Garlan & Shaw |title= An Introduction to Software Architecture |url= https://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/able/ftp/intro_softarch/intro_softarch.pdf |year=1994|access-date=2006-09-25}}</ref>
Line 75 ⟶ 93:
==Architecture activities==
Making architectural decisions involves collecting sufficient relevant information, providing justification for the decision, documenting the decision and its rationale, and communicating it effectively to the appropriate stakeholders. <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
It's software architect's responsibility to match [[List of system quality attributes|architectural characteristics]] (aka [[Non-functional requirement|non-functional requirements]]) with business requirements. For example: <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
* Having a high [[Customer satisfaction|customer satisfactions]] requires availability, fault tolerance, security, testability, recoverability, agility and performance in the system.
* Doing [[mergers and acquisitions]] (M&A) requires extensibility, scalability, adaptability, and interoperability
* Constrained budget and time requires feasibility and simplicity
* Faster [[Time to market|time-to-market]] requires maintainability, testability and deployability.
There are four core activities in software architecture design.<ref name="hofmeister07" /> These core architecture activities are performed iteratively and at different stages of the initial software development life-cycle, as well as over the evolution of a system.
'''Architectural analysis''' is the process of understanding the environment in which a proposed system will operate and determining the requirements for the system. The input or requirements to the analysis activity can come from any number of stakeholders and include items such as:
Line 84 ⟶ 111:
* business requirements and environmental contexts of a system that may change over time, such as legal, social, financial, competitive, and technology concerns<ref>{{cite book|author=Osterwalder and Pigneur| title = Value Creation from E-Business Models| chapter = An Ontology for e-Business Models|pages=65–97|year=2004| doi = 10.1016/B978-075066140-9/50006-0| isbn = 9780750661409|chapter-url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8513/9070e23b0b3278d73ea51b873acd99352e9c.pdf|citeseerx=10.1.1.9.6922| s2cid = 14177438| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181117063152/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8513/9070e23b0b3278d73ea51b873acd99352e9c.pdf| archive-date = 2018-11-17}}</ref>
The outputs of the analysis activity are those requirements that have a measurable impact on a software system's architecture, called architecturally significant requirements.<ref name="ASR_Chen">{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1109/MS.2012.174|title = Characterizing Architecturally Significant Requirements|journal = IEEE Software|volume = 30|issue = 2|pages = 38–45|year = 2013|last1 = Chen|first1 = Lianping|last2 = Ali Babar|first2 = Muhammad|last3 = Nuseibeh|first3 = Bashar| bibcode=2013ISoft..30b..38C |hdl = 10344/3061|s2cid = 17399565|hdl-access = free}}</ref>
'''Architectural synthesis''' or design is the process of creating an architecture. Given the architecturally significant requirements determined by the analysis, the current state of the design and the results of any evaluation activities, the design is created and improved.<ref name="hofmeister07"/><ref name="SAP2"/>{{rp|311–326}}
'''Architecture evaluation''' is the process of determining how well the current design or a portion of it satisfies the requirements derived during analysis. An evaluation can occur whenever an architect is considering a design decision, it can occur after some portion of the design has been completed, it can occur after the final design has been completed or it can occur after the system has been constructed. Some of the available software architecture evaluation techniques include [[Architecture tradeoff analysis method|Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method (ATAM)]] and TARA.<ref name="woods2012" >{{Cite journal | last1 = Woods | first1 = E. | title = Industrial architectural assessment using TARA | doi = 10.1016/j.jss.2012.04.055 | journal = Journal of Systems and Software | volume = 85 | issue = 9 | pages = 2034–2047 | year = 2012 | s2cid = 179244 }}</ref> Frameworks for comparing the techniques are discussed in frameworks such as ''SARA Report''<ref name="SARA" /> and ''Architecture Reviews: Practice and Experience''.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Maranzano | first1 = J. F. | last2 = Rozsypal | first2 = S. A. | last3 = Zimmerman | first3 = G. H. | last4 = Warnken | first4 = G. W. | last5 = Wirth | first5 = P. E. | last6 = Weiss | first6 = D. M. | doi = 10.1109/MS.2005.28 | title = Architecture Reviews: Practice and Experience | journal = IEEE Software | volume = 22 | issue = 2 | pages = 34 | year = 2005 | bibcode = 2005ISoft..22b..34M | s2cid = 11697335 }}</ref>
'''Architecture evolution''' is the process of maintaining and adapting an existing software architecture to meet changes in requirements and environment. As software architecture provides a fundamental structure of a software system, its evolution and maintenance would necessarily impact its fundamental structure. As such, architecture evolution is concerned with adding new functionality as well as maintaining existing functionality and system behavior.
Line 97 ⟶ 124:
Software architecture supporting activities are carried out during core software architecture activities. These supporting activities assist a software architect to carry out analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and evolution. For instance, an architect has to gather knowledge, make decisions, and document during the analysis phase.
* '''Knowledge management and communication''' is the act of exploring and managing knowledge that is essential to designing a software architecture. A software architect does not work in isolation. They get inputs, functional and non-functional requirements, and design contexts, from various stakeholders; and provide outputs to stakeholders. Software architecture knowledge is often tacit and is retained in the heads of stakeholders. Software architecture knowledge management activity is about finding, communicating, and retaining knowledge. As software architecture design issues are intricate and interdependent, a knowledge gap in design reasoning can lead to incorrect software architecture design.<ref name="Kruchten 2008">{{Cite journal |last1=Kruchten |first1=P. |year=2008 |title=What do software architects really do? |journal=Journal of Systems and Software |volume=81 |issue=12 |pages=2413–2416 |doi=10.1016/j.jss.2008.08.025}}</ref><ref name="SAKM">{{cite book|last1=Babar|first1=M.A.|last2=Dingsøyr|first2=T.|last3=Lago|first3=P.|last4=Vliet|first4=H. van|title=Software Architecture Knowledge Management:Theory and Practice (eds.), First Edition|publisher = Springer|year=2009|isbn=978-3-642-02373-6}}</ref> Examples of knowledge management and communication activities include searching for design patterns, prototyping, asking experienced developers and architects, evaluating the designs of similar systems, sharing knowledge with other designers and stakeholders, and documenting experience on a wiki page.
* '''Design reasoning and decision making''' is the activity of evaluating design decisions. This activity is fundamental to all three core software architecture activities.<ref name="jansen05">{{Cite book | last1 = Jansen | first1 = A. | last2 = Bosch | first2 = J. | doi = 10.1109/WICSA.2005.61 | chapter = Software Architecture as a Set of Architectural Design Decisions | title = 5th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA'05) | pages = 109 | year = 2005 | isbn = 978-0-7695-2548-8 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.60.8680 | s2cid = 13492610 }}</ref><ref name="tang09">{{Cite journal | last1 = Tang | first1 = A. | last2 = Han | first2 = J. | last3 = Vasa | first3 = R. | doi = 10.1109/MS.2009.46 | title = Software Architecture Design Reasoning: A Case for Improved Methodology Support | journal = IEEE Software | volume = 26 | issue = 2 | pages = 43 | year = 2009 | bibcode = 2009ISoft..26b..43T | hdl = 1959.3/51601 | s2cid = 12230032 | hdl-access = free }}</ref> It entails gathering and associating decision contexts, formulating design decision problems, finding solution options and evaluating tradeoffs before making decisions. This process occurs at different levels of decision [[granularity]] while evaluating significant architectural requirements and software architecture decisions, and software architecture analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Examples of reasoning activities include understanding the impacts of a requirement or a design on quality attributes, questioning the issues that a design might cause, assessing possible solution options, and evaluating the [[Trade-off|tradeoffs]] between solutions.
* '''Documentation''' is the act of recording the design generated during the software architecture process. [[Software design|System design]] is described using several views that frequently include a static view showing the code structure of the system, a dynamic view showing the actions of the system during execution, and a deployment view showing how a system is placed on hardware for execution. Kruchten's 4+1 view suggests a description of commonly used views for documenting software architecture;<ref name="Kru95">{{cite journal |last=Kruchten |first=Philippe |year=1995 |url=http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~gregor/teaching/papers/4+1view-architecture.pdf |title=Architectural Blueprints – The '4+1' View Model of Software Architecture |journal=IEEE Software |volume=12 |issue=6 |pages=42–50 |doi=10.1109/52.469759|arxiv=2006.04975 |s2cid=219558624 }}</ref> ''Documenting Software Architectures: Views and Beyond'' has descriptions of the kinds of notations that could be used within the view description.<ref name="DSA2" /> Examples of documentation activities are writing a specification, recording a system design model, documenting a design rationale, developing a viewpoint, documenting views.
== Software
Software architecture inherently deals with uncertainties, and the size of architectural components can significantly influence a system's outcomes, both positively and negatively. Neal Ford and Mark Richards propose an iterative approach to address the challenge of identifying and right-sizing components. This method emphasizes continuous refinement as teams develop a more nuanced understanding of system behavior and requirements. <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
The approach typically involves a cycle with several stages: <ref name="O'Reilly Media" />
* A high-level partitioning strategy is established, often categorized as technical or ___domain-based. Guidelines for the smallest meaningful deployable unit, referred to as "quanta," are defined. While these foundational decisions are made early, they may be revisited later in the cycle if necessary.
* Initial components are identified based on the established strategy.
* Requirements are assigned to the identified components.
* The roles and responsibilities of each component are analyzed to ensure clarity and minimize overlap.
* Architectural characteristics, such as scalability, fault tolerance, and maintainability, are evaluated.
* Components may be restructured based on feedback from development teams.
This cycle serves as a general framework and can be adapted to different domains.
== Software architecture topics ==
=== Software architecture and agile development ===
{{main|Agile development}}
There are also concerns that software architecture leads to too much [[big design up front]], especially among proponents of [[agile software development]]. A number of methods have been developed to balance the trade-offs of up-front design and agility,<ref name="Boehm2004">{{cite book |title=Balancing Agility and Discipline |last1=Boehm|first1=Barry|last2=Turner|first2=Richard|year=2004|publisher=Addison-Wesley|isbn=978-0-321-18612-6}}</ref> including the agile method [[dynamic systems development method|DSDM]] which mandates a "Foundations" phase during which "just enough" architectural foundations are laid. ''[[IEEE Software]]'' devoted a special issue to the interaction between agility and architecture.
=== Software architecture erosion ===
Software architecture erosion refers to a gradual gap between the intended and implemented architecture of a software system over time.<ref name="Ruiyin2022">{{Cite journal | last1 = Li | first1 = Ruiyin | last2 = Liang | first2 = Peng | last3 = Soliman | first3 = Mohamed | last4 = Avgeriou | first4 = Paris | doi = 10.1002/smr.2423 | title = Understanding software architecture erosion: A systematic mapping study | journal = [[Journal of Software: Evolution and Process]]| volume = 34 | issue = 3 | pages = e2423 | year = 2022 | url = https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/smr.2423| arxiv = 2112.10934 }}</ref> The phenomenon of software architecture erosion was initially brought to light in 1992 by Perry and Wolf alongside their definition of software architecture
Software architecture erosion may occur in each stage of the software development life cycle and has varying impacts on the development speed and the cost of maintenance. Software architecture erosion occurs due to various reasons, such as ''architectural violations'', ''the accumulation of technical debt'', and ''knowledge vaporization''.<ref name="Ruiyin2021">{{Cite book | last1 = Li | first1 = Ruiyin | last2 = Liang | first2 = Peng | last3 = Soliman | first3 = Mohamed | last4 = Avgeriou | first4 = Paris | doi = 10.1109/icpc52881.2021.00037 | title = The 29th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC) | chapter = Understanding architecture erosion: The practitioners' perceptive | pages = 311–322 | year = 2021 | isbn = 978-1-6654-1403-6 }}</ref> A famous case of architecture erosion is the failure of Mozilla Web browser.<ref>van Gurp, J. and Bosch, J.: 2002, Design erosion: Problems and causes, Journal of Systems and Software 61(2), 105–119.</ref> Mozilla is an application created by Netscape with a complex codebase that became harder to maintain due to continuous changes. Due to initial poor design and growing architecture erosion, Netscape spent two years redeveloping the Mozilla Web browser, demonstrating the importance of proactive architecture management to prevent costly repairs and project delays.
Architecture erosion can decrease software performance, substantially increase evolutionary costs, and degrade software quality. Various approaches and tools have been proposed to detect architecture erosion. These approaches are primarily classified into four categories: consistency-based, evolution-based, defect-based, and decision-based approaches.<ref name=" Ruiyin2022"/> For instance, automated architecture conformance checks, static code analysis tools, and refactoring techniques help identify and mitigate erosion early.
Besides, the measures used to address architecture erosion contain two main types: preventative and remedial measures.<ref name=" Ruiyin2022"/> Preventative measures include enforcing architectural rules, regular code reviews, and automated testing, while remedial measures involve refactoring, redesign, and documentation updates.
=== Software architecture recovery ===
Line 204 ⟶ 198:
{{cmn|colwidth=30em|
*[[ArchiMate]]
*[[Architecture description language]]
*[[Architecture framework]]
*[[Architectural pattern (computer science)]]
*[[Architectural style]]
*[[Anti-pattern]]
*[[Attribute-driven design]]
Line 214 ⟶ 211:
*[[Systems design]]
*[[Software Architecture Analysis Method]]
*[[List of software architecture styles and patterns]]
*[[Software architecture description]]
*[[Time-triggered system]]
*[[View model]]
}}
Line 226:
*{{Cite book| last = Bell | first = Michael | editor1-first = Michael | editor1-last = Bell | year = 2008 | title = Service-Oriented Modeling: Service Analysis, Design, and Architecture | publisher = Wiley|isbn=9780470255704|doi=10.1002/9781119198864}}
*{{Cite book |first1=Tony |last1=Shan |first2=Winnie |last2=Hua |title=2006 10th IEEE International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC'06) |chapter=Solution Architecting Mechanism |date=October 2006 |pages=23–32|doi=10.1109/EDOC.2006.54 |isbn=978-0-7695-2558-7 |s2cid=8361936 }}
*{{cite journal |first1=Javier |last1=Garzás |first2=Mario |last2=Piattini |title=An ontology for micro-architectural design knowledge |journal=[[IEEE Software]] |volume=22 |issue=2 |year=2005 |pages=28–33 |doi=10.1109/MS.2005.26|bibcode=2005ISoft..22b..28G |s2cid=17639072 }}
*{{Cite journal|last=Fowler|first=Martin|date=September 2003|title=Who Needs an Architect?|url=http://martinfowler.com/ieeeSoftware/whoNeedsArchitect.pdf|journal=[[IEEE Software]]|volume=20|issue=5|page=11 |doi=10.1109/MS.2003.1231144|bibcode=2003ISoft..20e..11F |s2cid=356506}}
*{{Cite journal|last=Kazman|first=Rick|date=May 2003|title=Architecture, Design, Implementation|url=https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/WhitePaper/2003_019_001_29559.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150921170650/http://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/WhitePaper/2003_019_001_29559.pdf |archive-date=2015-09-21 |url-status=live|journal=Software Engineering Institute}} - On the distinction between architectural design and detailed design.
*{{cite journal |last=Kruchten |first=Philippe |year=1995 |url=http://www3.software.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/rational/web/whitepapers/2003/Pbk4p1.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060613222204/http://www.software.ibm.com/ibmdl/pub/software/rational/web/whitepapers/2003/Pbk4p1.pdf |archive-date=2006-06-13 |url-status=live |title=Architectural Blueprints – The '4+1' View Model of Software Architecture |journal=IEEE Software |volume=12 |issue=6 |pages=42–50 |doi=10.1109/52.469759|arxiv=2006.04975 |s2cid=219558624 }}
Line 238:
* Collection of [http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/start/definitions.cfm software architecture definitions] at [[Software Engineering Institute]] (SEI), [[Carnegie Mellon University]] (CMU)
* [http://www.iasaglobal.org/ International Association of IT Architects (IASA Global)], formerly known as the International Association for Software Architects (IASA)
* [http://www.softwarearchitectureportal.org/ SoftwareArchitecturePortal.org] – website of
* [http://www.softwarearchitectures.com/ SoftwareArchitectures.com] – an independent resource of information on the discipline
* [http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/software_arch.htm Software Architecture], chapter 1 of [[Roy Fielding]]'s REST dissertation
| |||