cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
Subject Re: [Discuss] CXF Architecture and Architecture Documentation
Date Sat, 19 Feb 2011 13:24:47 GMT
Seems I overlooked the goals as they are almost at the bottom of the 
Architecture guide.  So they are not missing :-)


Am 19.02.2011 13:31, schrieb Christian Schneider:
> Hi All,
> I know that the theme is a big one and likely will spawn some larger 
> discussion still I think it is important to talk about it and to have 
> a common understanding.
> When digging into some not so obvious issues I repeatedly stumble 
> about the fact that there are important things about CXF that I donĀ“t 
> know or only have a vague clue of.
> Another problem I often had is where to put new stuff or decide if a 
> classs is placed at a location where it should not be.
> These examples show in my opinion that we do not have a good 
> architecture documentation and no clean process to decide about 
> architecture and to document decisions. So I propose some things
> and we see if we reach a consensus.
> The first thing is a question that always pops up and that is not so 
> easy. What is architecture?
> I once read a nice definition that is quite open but still catches 
> what is important:
> "Architecture is the sum of the decisions about a project that are the 
> most expensive to change later. "
> Sorry that I am not able to point to a concret source of this. I think 
> this definition catches the important thing about architecture. It 
> should cover only those things that may later bite you.
> So for example the decision it can be argued if the decision for a 
> logging framework is an architectural decision as we saw in Apache 
> Camel how fast they were able to switch to slf4j. So this was nothing
> that was expensive to change. In any case I am curious what you guys 
> consider as a good definition for an architecture.
> I would like to come to a consensus about what we define as 
> architecture as a first starting point.
> The next thing is how to document our architecture. We have a good 
> starting point at 
> but I think some important things are lacking. This page
> describes the key structural elements and how some key elements work 
> together in CXF. That is very important and we should simply try to 
> improve it. I would also like to add our common definition of what 
> architecture is to that document.
> The first thing I would like to add are architectural goals. An 
> architecture can never be good in itself. It can only be judged 
> against the goals it tries to achieve. Here again we should only track 
> the most important goals.
> The second thing I would like to add is a page about architectural 
> decisions. It should contain a short description of the process how we 
> do these decisions and a list of decisions in a well defined format. I 
> would also like
> to limit the decisions to a certain number so we are sure that only 
> the most important decisions are tracked. I added such a page as my 
> proposal and we should discuss if this is ok for all. As I have no 
> idea how many decisions we should track I think we could simply start 
> and keep in mind that it should not grow too large. See 
> I hope we reach a consensus about these things as I think they are 
> very important.
> Christian


View raw message