我同意其中的许多解释;本质上，我们认识到软件系统的架构设计和详细设计之间的区别。

虽然设计师的目标是在开发所需的规格中尽可能精确和具体;架构师本质上的目标是指定系统的结构和全局行为，就像详细设计开始时所要求的那样。

优秀的架构师会避免过度规范——架构不能过分指定，但要足够，(架构)决策只针对那些风险处理成本最高的方面建立，并有效地提供一个框架(“通用性”)，在这个框架内可以进行详细设计，即局部功能的可变性。

实际上，体系结构过程或生命周期只是遵循这个主题——足够的抽象级别来概述(体系结构上的)重要业务需求的结构，并将更多细节留给设计阶段以实现更具体的可交付成果。

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.)

你说得对，是的。系统的架构是它的“骨架”。它是系统抽象的最高层次。有什么样的数据存储，模块之间如何交互，有什么样的恢复系统。就像设计模式一样，也有架构模式:MVC、3层分层设计等。

软件设计就是设计各个模块/组件。模块x的职责和功能是什么?Y类?它能做什么，不能做什么?可以使用哪些设计模式?

所以简而言之，软件架构更多的是整个系统的设计，而软件设计则强调模块/组件/类的层面。

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.

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!