I feel architecture by intent is best applied to system level problems rather than individual components. An ideal place to apply it is considering the intent of a service in a service orientated architecture. A major issue in designing services is the appropriate level of granularity to expose, one rule of thumb is that it should be explainable in business objectives rather than technology. A good measure of the business objectives are the intent of the service.
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
Tuesday, November 26, 2002
Saturday, November 16, 2002
This is a design problem - throwing features into a product without considering the implications is just being lazy. We are at the point where we do not need to upgrade hardware platforms every 12-18 months unless poor software forces the issue.
We are not considering architecture by intent rather we are developing architecture by accidental consequences. Architecture by intent is the process of deciding what you wish to expose to users and how you want to expose it. Deciding to throw in a more features and not considering the impact is not an intent - it is unintended consequences.
Is it not about time we consider architecture by intent ?
Monday, November 11, 2002
- Operating systems should be irrelevant
- We should be able to access our data anytime, anywhere.
I installed the software mentioned in the article and played a little with it - the basic idea I get but I am still trying to see how to use it effectively (RTFM?). What I think is more relevant is that the software runs on Windows only. If you are trying to create a revolution you need to associate with revolutionaries.
Where are the revolutionaries though? One problem with the whole Linux desktop approach is that it is trying to copy Windows and emulate it. OpenOffice is great but apart from a few nice features its main advantage is cost; which I think is an advantage, but to change the world there has to be more than dollars involved.
Instead of arguing over the merits of KDE and GNOME the open source community should be trying to revolutionize the environment and make the operating system irrelevant. Removing the need to understand c:\ or /usr/local for most users would change the computing landscape. KDE versus GNOME will only slow down adoption, remember OpenWindows versus Motif.
If the open source community wants to change the world the operating system should be irrelevant and the user experience should be dramatically better rather than a copy of a copy(Windows) of a copy(Macintosh) of the Xerox Star. In this the author, David Gelernter and I agree, we are working with a metaphor that has its roots in the early part of the last century, the file cabinet.
There is an incredible amount of energy and talent in the open source community, could it not be focused better than creating another file folder metaphor?