--- In [email protected], "Gervas Douglas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But then how important are aesthetics to software architecture??
That is indeed the question. Terms like "clean" and "elegant" are often used when referring to a design or architecture that one might consider "good." I think it is the guiding principles of software architecture that are equivalent to aesthetics. Much like a building might be described as open and airy, or warm and inviting, or ornate, or imposing, etc. a software architecture would probably have aesthetics of agile, robust, loosely coupled, extensible, open, etc. But even lacking identifiable aesthetics, an identifiable architecture has specific design elements. For example, a Cape Cod is typically 1 or 1.5 stories high (via dormers). It has symmetrical appearance. It traditionally has a central chimney though contemporary designs often place the chimney at one end. And so on. For SOA, the only undisputed design element is the presence of service providers and service clients. Pretty much everything else is up for debate. And there is still no real agreement on the "proper" abstraction level for a service, though it would seem most lean toward a coarser-grained, business-focused level instead of fine- grained, API-ish level. -Rob
