有人能解释一下软件设计和软件架构的区别吗?
更具体地说;如果你让别人给你展示“设计”——你希望他们展示什么?“建筑”也是如此。
我目前的理解是:
设计:系统特定模块/部分的UML图/流程图/简单线框(用于UI)
架构:组件图(显示系统的不同模块如何相互通信以及如何与其他系统通信),要使用什么语言,模式……?
如果我说错了,请指正。我提到了维基百科在http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_design和http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_architecture上有文章,但我不确定我是否理解正确。
用我自己的话来说,你是对的;
体系结构是将系统需求分配给系统元素。关于架构的四个陈述:
它可以引入非功能性需求,如语言或模式。
它定义了组件、接口、时序等之间的交互。
它不应该引入新的功能,
它将系统要执行的(设计的)功能分配给元素。
当对系统的复杂性进行细分时,体系结构是必不可少的工程步骤。
例如:想想你的房子,你的厨房不需要建筑师(只涉及一个元素),但整个建筑需要一些交互定义,比如门和屋顶。
设计是对功能(提议的)实现的一种信息表示。它旨在获得反馈,并与利益相关者进行讨论。这可能是一个很好的实践,但不是一个必要的工程步骤。
在厨房安装之前,最好能看到厨房的设计,但对于烹饪要求来说不是必需的:
如果我想一下,你可以这样说:
架构是为公众/工程师在更详细的抽象层次上设计的
设计是在一个不太详细的抽象层次上面向公众的
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.
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!