Architecture of software systems is not something I’ve delved into very deeply in the past. For the most part, the systems I’ve worked on have been mostly self-contained and small-scale, and only recently, particularly in my work environment, have I been exposed to the importance and relevance of architecting the entire system in a smart manner, which involves much more than just the code lines within.
As I learn to develop larger-scale software, it becomes increasingly important for me to develop a capability of looking at the big picture, goals, and possible implementations of a desired software system. The number of individual moving parts just grows and grows when you need to accommodate logic, data, processes, and more, and I need to be as capable as possible of designing and implementing them, or otherwise working within them, while having an understanding of how they work, and how they affect what I’m making.
Software architecture concerns the overall structure of a system, including its components, relationships, and guiding principles.
The ultimate goal of thinking about your software’s architecture is to aid you and your team in creating the most performant, maintainable, scalable, and secure software systems possible for your use case and business requirements.
In order to learn more about architecture, I decided to take a look at a post on GeeksForGeeks that takes a look into the different types of architecture styles, their use cases, advantages and disadvantages, and inherent limitations.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/software-engineering/types-of-software-architecture-patterns/
The post explained how architecture patterns exist, just like design patterns do, and how they differ. Conceptually, the design patterns are lower-level implementation strategies, involving the individual components of a system, such as the Duck Simulator’s “factory” design pattern option. Architecture patterns, on the other hand, involve higher-level strategies for the entire software system, like the concept of client-server architecture, which will almost certainly now require some web-based components, or the concept of layered architecture, which involves splitting the system into four “layers”, the presentation layer, the business layer, the application layer, and the data layer.
Each architecture pattern has advantages and disadvantages just as the design patterns do. For example, the layered architecture pattern splits the system into four specialized parts, allowing for a more focused scope within each component, as in, the presentation layer is focused on UI components, and the data layer focuses just on data writing, retrieval, and storage.
Having a plan goes a long way when it comes to building software, and understanding architecture patterns is just another way to get better at planning, and working within, great software. I’ll continue to keep these concepts in mind as I create and work on more systems, and further my understanding of software architecture.
From the blog CS@Worcester – KeepOnComputing by CoffeeLegend and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.
