Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

patterns-discussion - [patterns-discussion] Archetypes

patterns-discussion AT lists.cs.illinois.edu

Subject: General talk about software patterns

List archive

[patterns-discussion] Archetypes


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Moisÿffffe9s Dÿffffedaz <mddtoledano AT yahoo.es>
  • To: Patterns Discussion <patterns-discussion AT cs.uiuc.edu>
  • Subject: [patterns-discussion] Archetypes
  • Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 20:28:01 +0100 (CET)
  • List-archive: <http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/patterns-discussion>
  • List-id: General talk about software patterns <patterns-discussion.cs.uiuc.edu>

Hi all,

On my opinion, at this moment, Software Architectures
are so abstract that relatively it is not very useful
for developers. All that a lot of people can read
about this topic are generalities that are very far
from day-to-day practitioners and software architects
that work in software industries.

Nevertheless, I think that we need architecture for
understanding systems, organising its development,
and making reuse more real. But perhaps we need an
intermediate (and new) concept to bring software
architecture to software development. Describing
different software architectures is not enough.

I think that this new concept must to extend design
patterns’ success.
This concept (that I have named ‘Archetypes’) is a
form of documenting (in one document):
Functional requirements.
Logic architectures (layers, pipelines, etc).
Physic architecture (real components, frameworks,
deployment configurations, etc).

The idea is develop a tree of documents related with
areas of software (web portals, enterprise information
systems). The final documents represent specific type
of software system, with defined logic architecture
and patterns, and with specific physic architecture
(frameworks, components, etc). Higher documents in the
tree will be only related to specific types of
software systems, and logic architectures.

I developed this concept in a small article (It is not
updated with the keyword ‘archetype’, I use (badly)
the term ‘pattern language’):
http://www.moisesdaniel.com/wri/htdsalp.html . An
example of archetype would be an article that I wrote:
‘Enterprise Information Systems’ Architecture’
http://www.moisesdaniel.com/wri/eisarc.html.

I think that identifying main architectures and
patterns is only a part of the real objective: we need
methodologies that can manage in a direct way the
architectural subject and I think that Archetypes can
be a bridge between Software Architectures and
Methodologies.

What I’m searching at this moment is opinions about if
this concept would be interesting and useful.

Excuse me if all what I’m commenting is not very
reasonable.

Best Regard,
Moisés D. Díaz




______________________________________________
Renovamos el Correo Yahoo!: ¡100 MB GRATIS!
Nuevos servicios, más seguridad
http://correo.yahoo.es





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page