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。


当前回答

是的,对我来说听起来不错。设计是你要做的事情,而架构是将设计的各个部分连接在一起的方式。它可以是语言不可知的,但通常会指定要使用的技术,例如LAMP vs Windows, Web服务vs RPC。

其他回答

如果有人建造了一艘船,那么发动机、船体、电路等将是他的“建筑元素”。对他来说,发动机制造将是“设计工作”。

如果他将引擎的构建委托给另一个团队,他们将创建一个“引擎架构”……

这取决于抽象和细节的程度。一个人的建筑可能是另一个人的设计!

Good question... Although the line between them is hardly a bright sharp line, imho, if you are using both terms, then Architecture encompasses more technical or structural decisions about how to build or construct something, especially those decisions that will be hard (or harder) to change once implemeneted, whereas Design encompasses those decisions that either are easy to change later (like method names, class <-> file organizational structure, design patterns, whether to use a singleton or a static class to solve some specific problem, etc. ) and/or those that effect the appearance or esthetic aspects of a system or application (Human Interface, ease of use, look and feel, etc.)

我认为架构是关于人类和/或系统的接口。例如,web服务契约(包括协议等)就是体系结构。一个屏幕是如何组成的,不是颜色之类的,而是有什么领域,这就是架构。

设计就是如何建造某样东西。什么框架、语言、技术等等。当然,这必须与考虑平台、安全性等的企业指导方针和限制相一致。

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?

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.