Yes, sure. It's an iterative process, or should be. Top down and bottom up are complementary, and design needs to be checked for feasibility and changed as necessary to relflect reality.
But the top level goal still has to be usefulness for purpose, which necessitates a view independent of any particular technology. Eric --- Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Newcomer wrote: > > I would agree 100% with what you are saying, and I > > often tell our customers (and anyone else who > might be > > attending one of my talks, such as the one next > week > > at the InfoWorld forum in San Fran) that it is > vitally > > important to start with the design and the > > architecture and make the technology choice later. > > While I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of > architecture before design, I'd > also like to stress that many times, we all think of > architecture based on our > design experiences. Thinking out of the box can > often provide a lot more bang > for the buck. Many times, the choice of a different > technology can eliminate > complete architectural components that you are used > to including because a > particular technology includes that. And sometimes, > by not including a > component that another technology requires/uses you > don't have a feature that > would help simplify your architecture. So, you have > to look at it from both > angles, and make sure that your architecture is > about concreate features, not > about systems operations. > > Gregg Wonderly > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
