I understand that most systems would not be "pure" examples of any one classification. I suspected that vistA had some hybridization based on the descriptions of its development and what it can actually do. The history of Hardhats does sound like completely ad hoc development;however, I didn't think the level of interoperability and functionality would have happened without some foundation framework. For the purposes of the taxonomy, something that is more one thing than another can serve as a reference point.
I have been told that CHCSII was an rebuild without reference to the VA system.
Can you comment on this? - Was it top-down, bottom up? Are its capabiltites
similar?
-Lorie
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Greg Woodhouse
Sent: Thu 4/20/2006 4:25 PM
To: hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Hardhats-members] grown vs architected systems
--- Lorie Obal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would it be fair to classify openVista as a "grown" system -
> developed as demanded (ad hoc) as opposed to an architected from the
> ground up system?
>
> -Lorie
>
There are parts that I would say have essentially grown organically and
parts that could be considered informally to semi-formally
architechted. Generally speaking, I would say that little, if any, of
it was developed from anything like a formal architecture. Others may
well disagree with me on this point.
That being said, I think this is a bit of a false dichotomy (and,
unfortunately, one that can lead to some emotional debates). For
example, in the area of agile development (which really isn't a bad
description for the early history of VistA), many will point out that
it makes sense to speak of agile/extreme analysis and agile/extreme
architecture, and I think they have a point. But to take just one
example from VistA, Fileman, I think it is clear that it does have
conceptual underpinnings that were carefully thought out. Is it as
clean as it could be? Probably not. Could it be improved? Well, I've
been saying for years that the answer is yes. But it certainly doesn't
follow that it is just a random aggregation of features (or, to be more
precise, a set of tools and features added on an "as needed" basis
without any overarching plan).
I guess that when you get right down to it, we need to start out by
DEFINING architecture. Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. Too
often, we fall into the trap of thinking of architecture in terms of a
particular methodology. I've commented before that in the Barnes and
Noble where I live there are two sections, more or less side by side,
called "Software Development" and "Software Engineering". Books about
UML, use cases, etc. are invariably found in the latter. Does that mean
that using object oriented analysis and design qualifies as engineering
while other approaches to software development do not? It seems to me
that some people have been more successful at, well, marketing their
preferred methodology as being "scientific", "engineering" or
"architecture based". To me, whatever architecture is, it isn't
specific to a particular language, family of languages, or methodology.
===
Gregory Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"It is foolish to answer a question that
you do not understand."
--G. Polya ("How to Solve It")
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Hardhats-members mailing list
Hardhats-members@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
<<winmail.dat>>
