On 3/10/06, Todd Biske <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thoughts? One litmus test that is an interesting exercise is whether this same approach would hold for external integration, since the scenario I described above is suited for internal consumers and providers. I still feel that the interface design should be a negotiation, and it holds true that if you don't come to the table with something in mind, the other party is going to dominate the negotiation.
I think people get confused by *an* architecture (the finished result) and *architecture* (the process in which the result come by). Design is a problem-solving excercise and is a part of what an architect does. But a lot of emphasize is put on architecture, the finished result, so when they do architecture review it's pretty much the same as a design review only that it usually happens towards the end. :) Another misconception thay doesn't help much in this either is the notion that design equals visual design. Hmm.
Basically, an architect *designs* something that ends up being the architecture of something. You can review the architecture (which has a sense of finality to it or a sense of totality) or review the design (which can be a part of a longer design process and / or be a small part of a bigger design | the complete architecture).
I come from a design side of things, so that's my angle. :)
Alex
--
"Ultimately, all things are known because you want to believe you know."
- Frank Herbert
__ http://shelter.nu/ __________________________________________________
SPONSORED LINKS
| Computer software | Computer aided design software | Computer job |
| Soa | Service-oriented architecture |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
