これから学ぶ人のためのソフトウェアアーキテクチャ入門: Software architecture is a tool to enhance our humanity

Slide 1

Slide 1 text

͜Ε͔ΒֶͿਓͷͨΊͷ ιϑτ΢ΣΞΞʔΩςΫνϟೖ໳ ౡాߒೋ !TOPP[FS %FWFMPQFST4VNNJU4VNNFS 4PGUXBSFBSDIJUFDUVSFJTBUPPMUPFOIBODFPVSIVNBOJUZ ENISHI TECH INC.

Slide 15

Slide 15 text

lʜΞʔΩςΫνϟ͸ɺιϑτ΢ΣΞ͚ͩʹґଘ͍ͯ͠ΔΘ͚Ͱ ͸͋Γ·ͤΜɻιϑτ΢ΣΞͷͲͷ෦෼ΛॏཁͱΈͳ͔͢ͱ͍͏ ूஂͷ߹ҙʹ΋ґଘ͠·͢ɻΑͬͯɺΞʔΩςΫνϟͱ͸ࣾձత ߏங෺ͳͷͰ͢ʢ·͋ɺιϑτ΢ΣΞ΋ͦ͏Ͱ͕͢ɺΞʔΩςΫ νϟ͸͞Βʹͦ͏Ͱ͢ʣɻʜ 2 IEEE SOFTWARE Published by the IEEE Computer Society 0740-7459/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE Wandering down our corridor a while ago, I saw my colleague Dave Rice in a particularly grumpy mood. My brief question caused a violent statement, “We shouldn’t interview anyone who has ‘architect’ on his resume.” At first blush, this was an odd turn of phrase, because we usually introduce Dave as one of our leading architects. The reason for his title schizo- phrenia is the fact that, even by our industry’s standards, “architect” and “architecture” are terribly overloaded words. For many, the term “software architect” fits per- fectly with the smug controlling image at the end of Matrix Reloaded. Yet even in firms that have the greatest contempt for that image, there’s a vital role for the technical leadership that an architect such as Dave plays. What is architecture? When I was fretting over the title for Pat- terns of Enterprise Application Architecture (Addison-Wesley, 2002), everyone who re- viewed it agreed that “architecture” belonged in the title. Yet we all felt uncomfortable defining the word. Because it was my book, I felt compelled to take a stab at defining it. My first move was to avoid fuzziness by just letting my cynicism hang right out. In a sense, I define architecture as a word we use when we want to talk about design but want to puff it up to make it sound important. (Yes, you can imagine a similar phenomenon for architect.) However, as so often occurs, inside the blighted cynicism is a pinch of truth. Un- derstanding came to me after reading a posting from Ralph Johnson on the Extreme Program- ming mailing list. It’s so good I’ll quote it all. A previous posting said The RUP, working off the IEEE definition, defines architecture as “the highest level concept of a system in its environment. The architecture of a software system (at a given point in time) is its orga- nization or structure of significant components interacting through interfaces, those components being composed of successively smaller components and interfaces.” Johnson responded: I was a reviewer on the IEEE standard that used that, and I argued uselessly that this was clearly a completely bogus definition. There is no highest level concept of a system. Customers have a different concept than developers. Customers do not care at all about the structure of significant components. So, perhaps an architecture is the highest level concept that developers have of a system in its environment. Let’s forget the developers who just understand their little piece. Ar- chitecture is the highest level concept of the expert developers. What makes a component significant? It is significant because the expert developers say so. So, a better definition would be “In most successful software projects, the expert developers working on that project have a shared understanding of the design Who Needs an Architect? Martin Fowler E d i t o r : M a r t i n F o w l e r I T h o u g h t Wo r k s I f o w l e r @ a c m . o r g

Slide 31

Slide 31 text

ʜʮ΄ͱΜͲͷ੒ޭ͢Διϑτ΢ΣΞϓϩδΣΫτͰ͸ɺͦͷϓϩ δΣΫτʹܞΘΔઐ໳Ոͷ։ൃऀ͸ɺγεςϜઃܭͷڞ௨ͷཧղΛ ͍࣋ͬͯ·͢ɻ͜ͷڞ௨ͷཧղΛɺʰΞʔΩςΫνϟʱͱݺͿͷͰ ͢ɻ͜ͷཧղʹ͸ɺγεςϜ͕ͲͷΑ͏ʹίϯϙʔωϯτʹ෼ׂ͞ ΕΔ͔ɺίϯϙʔωϯτ͕ΠϯλϑΣʔεΛհͯ͠ͲͷΑ͏ʹର࿩ ͢Δؚ͔͕·Ε·͢ɻ 2 IEEE SOFTWARE Published by the IEEE Computer Society 0740-7459/03/$17.00 © 2003 IEEE Wandering down our corridor a while ago, I saw my colleague Dave Rice in a particularly grumpy mood. My brief question caused a violent statement, “We shouldn’t interview anyone who has ‘architect’ on his resume.” At first blush, this was an odd turn of phrase, because we usually introduce Dave as one of our leading architects. The reason for his title schizo- phrenia is the fact that, even by our industry’s standards, “architect” and “architecture” are terribly overloaded words. For many, the term “software architect” fits per- fectly with the smug controlling image at the end of Matrix Reloaded. Yet even in firms that have the greatest contempt for that image, there’s a vital role for the technical leadership that an architect such as Dave plays. What is architecture? When I was fretting over the title for Pat- terns of Enterprise Application Architecture (Addison-Wesley, 2002), everyone who re- viewed it agreed that “architecture” belonged in the title. Yet we all felt uncomfortable defining the word. Because it was my book, I felt compelled to take a stab at defining it. My first move was to avoid fuzziness by just letting my cynicism hang right out. In a sense, I define architecture as a word we use when we want to talk about design but want to puff it up to make it sound important. (Yes, you can imagine a similar phenomenon for architect.) However, as so often occurs, inside the blighted cynicism is a pinch of truth. Un- derstanding came to me after reading a posting from Ralph Johnson on the Extreme Program- ming mailing list. It’s so good I’ll quote it all. A previous posting said The RUP, working off the IEEE definition, defines architecture as “the highest level concept of a system in its environment. The architecture of a software system (at a given point in time) is its orga- nization or structure of significant components interacting through interfaces, those components being composed of successively smaller components and interfaces.” Johnson responded: I was a reviewer on the IEEE standard that used that, and I argued uselessly that this was clearly a completely bogus definition. There is no highest level concept of a system. Customers have a different concept than developers. Customers do not care at all about the structure of significant components. So, perhaps an architecture is the highest level concept that developers have of a system in its environment. Let’s forget the developers who just understand their little piece. Ar- chitecture is the highest level concept of the expert developers. What makes a component significant? It is significant because the expert developers say so. So, a better definition would be “In most successful software projects, the expert developers working on that project have a shared understanding of the design Who Needs an Architect? Martin Fowler E d i t o r : M a r t i n F o w l e r I T h o u g h t Wo r k s I f o w l e r @ a c m . o r g

Slide 1

Slide 1 text

Slide 2

Slide 2 text

Slide 3

Slide 3 text

Slide 4

Slide 4 text

Slide 5

Slide 5 text

Slide 6

Slide 6 text

Slide 7

Slide 7 text

Slide 8

Slide 8 text

Slide 9

Slide 9 text

Slide 10

Slide 10 text

Slide 11

Slide 11 text

Slide 12

Slide 12 text

Slide 13

Slide 13 text

Slide 14

Slide 14 text

Slide 15

Slide 15 text

Slide 16

Slide 16 text

Slide 17

Slide 17 text

Slide 18

Slide 18 text

Slide 19

Slide 19 text

Slide 20

Slide 20 text

Slide 21

Slide 21 text

Slide 22

Slide 22 text

Slide 23

Slide 23 text

Slide 24

Slide 24 text

Slide 25

Slide 25 text

Slide 26

Slide 26 text

Slide 27

Slide 27 text

Slide 28

Slide 28 text

Slide 29

Slide 29 text

Slide 30

Slide 30 text

Slide 31

Slide 31 text

Slide 32

Slide 32 text

Slide 33

Slide 33 text

Slide 34

Slide 34 text

Slide 35

Slide 35 text

Slide 36

Slide 36 text

Slide 37

Slide 37 text

Slide 38

Slide 38 text

Slide 39

Slide 39 text

Slide 40

Slide 40 text