建筑就是设计，但并非所有的设计都是建筑。因此，严格地说，尝试区分架构设计和非架构设计会更有意义。有什么区别呢?视情况而定!每个软件架构师可能有不同的答案(ymmv!)我们开发我们的启发式来提出一个答案，例如“类图是架构，序列图是设计”。有关更多信息，请参阅DSA书籍。

人们常说，架构比设计处于更高的抽象级别，或者架构是逻辑的，而设计是物理的。但这种观念虽然被普遍接受，但在实践中却毫无用处。在高抽象和低抽象之间，逻辑和物理之间，你的界线在哪里?视情况而定!

所以，我的建议是:

create a single design document. name this design document the way you want or, better, the way the readers are more accustomed to. Examples: "Software Architecture", "Software Design Specification". break this document into views and keep in mind you can create a view as a refinement of another view. make the views in the document navigable by adding cross-references or hyperlinks then you'll have higher level views showing broad but shallow overview of the design, and closer-to-implementation views showing narrow but deeper design details. you may want to take a look at an example of multi-view architecture document (here).

说了这么多……我们需要问的一个更相关的问题是:多少设计才足够?也就是说，我什么时候应该停止描述设计(用图表或散文)，而应该转向编码?

我像Patrick Karcher一样看待建筑——从大局出发。例如，您可以为建筑物提供架构，查看其结构支撑、窗户、入口和出口、排水等。但你并没有“设计”楼层布局、隔间位置等。

所以当你设计了大楼的时候，你并没有设计每个办公室的布局。 我认为这同样适用于软件。

你可以把设计布局看作是“设计布局”……

软件架构“关注的问题是……超出了计算的算法和数据结构。

架构特别不是关于实现的细节(例如，算法和数据结构)。体系结构设计包含了比OOD(面向对象设计)通常提供的更丰富的抽象集合。

设计涉及到设计元素的模块化和详细接口，它们的算法和过程，以及支持体系结构和满足需求所需的数据类型。

“建筑”经常被用作“设计”的同义词(有时前面带有形容词“高级”)。许多人使用术语“架构模式”作为“设计模式”的同义词。

查看这个链接。

定义术语体系结构、设计和实现

这个问题没有明确的答案，因为“软件架构”和“软件设计”有相当多的定义，而且都没有一个规范的定义。

一个很好的思考方法是Len Bass, Paul Clements和Rick Kazman的声明，“所有的架构都是设计，但并不是所有的设计都是架构”[软件架构实践]。我不确定我是否完全同意这一点(因为架构可以包括其他活动)，但它抓住了架构是处理设计的关键子集的设计活动的本质。

我的稍微轻率的定义(在SEI定义页面上找到)是，它是一组决策，如果做出错误的决定，将导致项目被取消。

A useful attempt at separating architecture, design and implementation as concepts was done by Amnon Eden and Rick Kazman some years ago in a research paper entitled "Architecture, Design, Implementation" which can be found here: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/library/assets/ICSE03-1.pdf. Their language is quite abstract but simplistically they say that architecture is design that can be used in many contexts and is meant to be applied across the system, design is (err) design that can be used in many contexts but is applied in a specific part of the system, and implementation is design specific to a context and applied in that context.

So an architectural decision could be a decision to integrate the system via messaging rather than RPC (so it's a general principle that could be applied in many places and is intended to apply to the whole system), a design decision might be to use a master/slave thread structure in the input request handling module of the system (a general principle that could be used anywhere but in this case is just used in one module) and finally, an implementation decision might be to move responsibilities for security from the Request Router to the Request Handler in the Request Manager module (a decision relevant only to that context, used in that context).

我希望这能有所帮助!

体系结构更像是集成系统的各种功能，以实现系统的一个整体目标，而设计则解决每个功能需求。

例如，以MVVM为例，这是一种体系结构模式。对于通知功能，MVVM使用观察者模式，这又是一种设计模式，

在SDLC(软件开发生命周期)的一些描述中，它们是可互换的，但共识是它们是不同的。它们同时是:不同的(1)阶段，(2)责任领域，(3)决策层次。

架构是更大的图景:框架、语言、范围、目标和高级方法(Rational、瀑布式、敏捷等)的选择。 设计是更小的画面:如何组织代码的计划;系统不同部分之间的契约将会是怎样的;项目方法和目标的持续实施。规范是在这个阶段编写的。

由于不同的原因，这两个阶段似乎融合在一起。

Smaller projects often don't have enough scope to separate out planning into these to stages. A project might be a part of a larger project, and hence parts of both stages are already decided. (There are already existing databases, conventions, standards, protocols, frameworks, reusable code, etc.) Newer ways of thinking about the SDLC (see Agile methodologies) somewhat rearrange this traditional approach. Design (architecture to a lesser extent) takes place throughout the SDLC on purpose. There are often more iterations where the whole process happens over and over. Software development is complicated and difficult to plan anyway, but clients/managers/salespeople usually make it harder by changing goals and requirements mid-stream. Design and even architectural decisions must bemade later in the project whether that is the plan or not.

Even if the stages or areas of responsibility blend together and happen all over the place, it is always good to know what level of decision-making is happening. (We could go on forever with this. I'm trying to keep it a summary.) I'll end with: Even if it seems your project has no formal architectural or design stage/AOR/documentaiton, it IS happening whether anyone is consciously doing it or not. If no one decides to do architecture, then a default one happens that is probably poor. Ditto for design. These concepts are almost more important if there are no formal stages representing them.