| <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> |
| <org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription xmi:version="2.0" |
| xmlns:xmi="http://www.omg.org/XMI" xmlns:org.eclipse.epf.uma="http://www.eclipse.org/epf/uma/1.0.5/uma.ecore" |
| xmlns:epf="http://www.eclipse.org/epf" epf:version="1.5.0" xmi:id="-t7mQSRPYITkMoYRVNz7jQg" |
| name="develop_architecture,_mDf2EBapEduSTJywppIxVQ" guid="-t7mQSRPYITkMoYRVNz7jQg" |
| changeDate="2007-04-13T05:42:38.234-0700" version="1.0.0"> |
| <mainDescription><h3> Identify architecturally significant design elements </h3>
 |
| <p align="left"> Consider&nbsp;each high-priority&nbsp;scenario that is within 
 |
| the scope of the project. Walk through the actions that the&nbsp;scenario initiates, 
 |
| and highlight the areas of the architecture that are factors in realizing, or 
 |
| implementing, the requirements. </p>
 |
| <p>
 |
| Identifying components will help hide the complexity of the system and help you work at a higher level. Components need
 |
| to be internally cohesive and to provide external services through a limited interface. Component identification can
 |
| be&nbsp;based on architectural layers, deployment choices, or key abstractions. Ask yourself these questions:
 |
| </p>
 |
| <ul>
 |
| <li>
 |
| What is logically or functionally related (same use case or service, for example)?
 |
| </li>
 |
| 
 |
| <li> What entities provide services to multiple other services? </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| What entities depend on each other? Strongly or weakly?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| What entities should you be able to exchange independently from others?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| What will run on the same processor or network node?
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| What parts are constrained by similar performance requirements?
 |
| </li>
 |
| </ul>
 |
| <p>
 |
| Each component includes entities from the problem domain, control classes that coordinate complex tasks within
 |
| components, and interfaces that handle communication with the environment. The interface for each instantiated element
 |
| is identified. At this point, interfaces do not need to be as detailed as a signature, but they do need to document
 |
| what the elements need, what they can use, and what they can depend on.
 |
| </p>
 |
| <p>
 |
| Identified patterns define the types of elements, but not a specific number. Apply the chosen patterns to define a new
 |
| set of elements that conform to the patterns. Functionality will be allocated to the instantiated elements.
 |
| </p>
 |
| <h3> Refine&nbsp;the Architectural Mechanisms </h3>
 |
| <p> Consider each high-priority quality scenario, and map each of these onto the 
 |
| Architectural Mechanisms. Refine the mechanisms to identify the specific technology&nbsp;that 
 |
| will handle each mechanism within the scope. For example, for the Persistence 
 |
| mechanism, it may be appropriate to&nbsp;use a relational database management 
 |
| system, such as MySQL.&nbsp;Consider the selection of technology in the context 
 |
| of the requirements and constraints. </p>
 |
| <p>
 |
| See <a class="elementLinkWithType" href="./../../../openup/guidances/concepts/arch_mech_2932DFB6.html" guid="_mzxI0A4LEduibvKwrGxWxA">Concept: Architectural Mechanism</a> for more information.
 |
| </p>
 |
| <h2 align="left"> Map the software to the hardware </h4>
 |
| <p align="left"> Produce a precise map of deployable software components to network 
 |
| nodes. </p>
 |
| <h4> Define development and test architectures </h4>
 |
| <p> The configuration of the environments where the system is developed and tested 
 |
| may be different from the target production environment, and this may have an 
 |
| impact on the solution. For example:</p>
 |
| <ul>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Additional software may needed to be developed to support testing.
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Alternative deployment configurations may need to be defined for different environments in response to constraints
 |
| on development and test&nbsp;hardware.
 |
| </li>
 |
| <li>
 |
| Multiple environments may be required to support different categories of tests (such as&nbsp;performance testing or
 |
| user acceptance testing). These will need to be specified.
 |
| </li>
 |
| </ul>
 |
| <p> These scenarios, although not desirable, are often forced on the team through 
 |
| various constraints. Consequently, the architecture for these different environments 
 |
| will need to be specified&nbsp;with particular attention paid to significant 
 |
| differences. Be sure to consider the impact of any differences on the quality 
 |
| of the overall target production architecture. </p>
 |
| <h4> Validate the architecture </h4>
 |
| <p> The surest way to validate the architecture is through software. The software 
 |
| developed up to the end of the Elaboration phase is largely aiming to validate 
 |
| the architecture (to the point where it can be baselined), thereby providing 
 |
| some level of stability during the Construction phase. </p>
 |
| <p> It can also be useful to perform simple validation by walking through the 
 |
| main design concepts and models, perhaps by using a whiteboard or through other 
 |
| collaborative techniques. This can help refine thinking but will not act as 
 |
| a substitute for building some software. </p>
 |
| <h4> Communicate decisions </h4>
 |
| <p> You can document and communicate your decisions as many ways as you wish, 
 |
| for example:</p>
 |
| <ul>
 |
| 
 |
| <li> Publication of&nbsp;reference source code</li>
 |
| 
 |
| <li> Publication of&nbsp;reference models</li>
 |
| 
 |
| <li> Publication of&nbsp;software architecture documentation</li>
 |
| 
 |
| <li> Formal&nbsp;presentations of the material</li>
 |
| 
 |
| <li> Informal walkthroughs of the architecture</li>
 |
| </ul></mainDescription> |
| </org.eclipse.epf.uma:ContentDescription> |
