I am confused with the three groups of architecture structures (from "Software Architecture in Practice, 2Ed" by Len Bass, Paul Clements and Rick Kazman) and the architecture styles (from Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline" by Mary Shaw and David Garlan).
The 1st book explained about the module structure (decomposition, uses, layered, class), Component-and-connector structure (client-server, concurrency, process, shared data) and allocation (work assignment, deployment, implementation).
The second book detailed the architectural styles which include batch sequential, pipes and filters, interpreter, implicit invocation, repository, blackboard and process control, object orientation and layered.
Is the architectural styles in the second book referring to the Component-and-connector structure in the 1st book? If yes, does it mean that architectural structure is the same as architectural styles?; Is architectural structures = architectural styles?
And what about architectural pattern? Is it the same as architectural styles?
And what about the Rational 4+1 views? What is the relationship of the views with the architectural structures?
In my opinion, architectural styles are, in deed, refereeing to Component-and-connector structure. Both, architectural styles and Component-and-connector structure are describing architectural patterns. If you think of an architectural pattern as a pre-canned solution for a recurring architectural problem, then client/server is a pattern, filter and pipes is a pattern, repository is a pattern, etc.
All those solutions provide you with some sort of structure and behavior, witch have its upsides and downsides. According to the problem context a specific pattern is better suited to solve a specific problem than other.
There are architectural patterns, design patterns, even coding patterns. It’s the same as architecture vs, design; it all depends on the level of abstraction you use to understand and solver a problem.
Previous Topic
