我认为当我们讨论设计与架构时，我们应该使用下面的规则来确定:如果您创建的软件图的元素可以一一映射到编程语言的语法结构，那么就是设计，如果不是架构。

So, for example, if you are seeing a class diagram or a sequence diagram, you are able to map a class and their relationships to an Object Oriented Programming language using the Class syntactical construction. This is clearly Design. In addition, this might bring to the table that this discussion has a relation with the programming language you will use to implement a software system. If you use Java, the previous example applies, as Java is an Object Oriented Programming Language. If you come up with a diagram that shows packages and its dependencies, that is Design too. You can map the element (a package in this case) to a Java syntactical construction.

Now, suppose your Java application is divided in modules, and each module is a set of packages (represented as a jar file deployment unit), and you are presented with a diagram containing modules and its dependencies, then, that is Architecture. There isn’t a way in Java (at least not until Java 7) to map a module (a set of packages) to a syntactical construction. You might also notice that this diagram represents a step higher in the level of abstraction of your software model. Any diagram above (coarse grained than) a package diagram, represents an Architectural view when developing in the Java programming language. On the other hand, if you are developing in Modula-2, then, a module diagram represents a Design.

(摘自http://www.copypasteisforword.com/notes/software-architecture-vs-software-design)

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.

当您需要将较高体系结构级别识别的业务和功能投射到应用程序中时，软件体系结构最好用于系统级。

例如，你的业务是关于交易员的“盈亏”，你的主要功能涉及“投资组合评估”和“风险计算”。

但是当软件架构师详细描述他的解决方案时，他会意识到:

“投资组合评估”不能只是一个应用程序。它需要在可管理的项目中进行细化，例如:

GUI 发射器 调度程序 .．.

(因为涉及的操作太大了，需要在几台计算机之间进行拆分，同时仍然可以通过一个通用的GUI随时监控)

软件设计将检查不同的应用程序，它们的技术关系和内部子组件。 它将产生最后一个体系结构层(“技术体系结构”)工作所需的规范(根据技术框架或横向组件)，以及项目团队(更面向业务功能的实现)开始各自的项目所需的规范。

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!

体系结构确定了系统的基本组件，描述了它们的组织，以及它们与创建系统框架的关系。

设计描述了各种组件，以及应该如何在系统架构提供的框架中开发它们以提供所需的功能。

我的提醒:

我们可以不征求别人的意见就改变设计 如果我们改变架构，我们需要将其传达给某人(团队、客户、涉众……)