Mark Baker wrote: > On 1/29/07, Dan Creswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> REST? SOA? Classify a system as you wish because all I care about is: >> >> (1) Working/not-working >> >> (2) Copes with my load/doesn't cope with my load >> >> (3) Maintainable/not-maintainable >> >> (4) Simple/complex > > Absolutely. There's lots more architectural properties beyond those > that you'd need too I assume; scalability, evolvability (related to > maintainability), etc.. > > Architectural constraints are one way of reasoning about how to obtain > those properties. For example, we can say that interface constraints > induce scalability, evolvability, simplicity, etc... but we also have > to note that it comes at the cost of performance. > > Using a style just means starting with a given quantity of certain > types of properties, which seems to be what you're looking for. Of > course, an architect should always be aware of additional constraints > that can be added, or existing ones relaxed, in order to meet their > particular needs. >
Uh huh, so you could conceive of situations where you might change that style across bits of your systems? > Bruce Lee was modest. His style borrowed constraints from multiple > other styles, as well as some novel ones of his own. That's far from > "no style". > Not quite, his style constantly evolved which is why he ultimately didn't want to even name his "system" because, s'far as he was concerned, labelling it, froze it in time to be just one thing. Thus his contention that he had no style - as in no fixed style, as in constantly changing and evolving at any time to be appropriate for whatever circumstance he encountered. Thanks for a pragmatic, well-articulated response, Dan.
