当我寻找建筑和设计之间的简单区别时，我发现了这一点; 你对这种看待他们的方式有什么看法?

架构是我们正在建造的“什么”; 设计是我们“如何”建造;

架构设计的基本原理来自于各种因素，其中最重要的是非功能性需求，比如可伸缩性，当然最重要的是经验。没有了理论基础，你就只剩下平淡的模式，或者怎么做。无论是在更高的层次上还是在类的层次上，它仍然是设计。

或者换句话说

架构是元设计，即设计设计。您有一些已知的模式适合某个解决方案空间，您会选择哪个，为什么?架构是当你回答“是哪个”和“为什么”时(“如何”已经在设计中给出了)。它当然不依赖于抽象级别，例如实现分布式会话不是一个类级别的任务，但是对于给定的体系结构有一些设计可供选择。

同样，体系结构也反映在类级设计中。在可伸缩的体系结构下，如果不考虑可伸缩性因素，类设计通常是不同的。为什么你必须有一个方法“BeginAsyncUpload”而不是“Upload”是一个架构决策。

有趣的是，当我们将注意力转移到更高层次的系统元素时，“哪个和为什么”问题变得更加重要，而“如何”变得不那么相关。从另一个方向来看，“如何”部分变得更加重要，这也是因为重复使用使得它变得很明显，例如，在抽象工厂和原型之间进行选择。

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.

...long time ago in a faraway place philosophers worried about the distinction between the one and the many. Architecture is about relationship, which requires the many. Architecture has components. Design is about content, which requires the one. Design has properties, qualities, characteristics. We typically think that design is within architecture. Dualistic thinking gives the many as primordial. But architecture is also within design. It's all how we choose to view what is before us - the one or the many.

在我看来，架构只不过是一个愿景，以正确的方式收集需求并构建构建块

在设计中，构建特定的块可能有100种解决方案，但为了满足具体的要求，我们需要选择正确的方法，所以选择正确的方法或算法不是设计吗

以下是可能更详细地解释体系结构的参考资料和软件体系结构的UML图列表。(我找不到用于软件设计的UML图列表)

Grady Booch

在架构模型中使用UML 2图

UML图的分类

UML图的分类

即使在发布了这个答案之后，我自己也不清楚哪个图是用于架构的，哪个图是用于设计的:)。Grady Booch在他的第58张幻灯片中指出，类、接口和协作是设计视图的一部分，而这个设计视图是架构视图的一部分!!