Related
Based on my own experience and on experience of my friends I see that many companies have some strange ideas to develop their own frameworks and SW factories (builds skeleton of application for you). These ideas are usually based on belief that own framework will be much better than anything else available. How to deal with such ideas and how to explain that it is not always good way to go?
Why I think internal frameworks / factories are not good:
Budget & Resources - There is usually only some initial budget to create framework. Nobody thinks about budget needed to maintain and support framework. Nobody can even estimate budget and resources needed for maintaing. At the beginning nobody thinks about maintaining multiple versions of framework to support already existing applications.
Lack of experience - Framework is usually created by people without any such experience or with support of "consultants" - generally much more expensive people with similar skill set.
Architecture / design - any architectural problem in framework affects all applications build using this framework. Bad design decissions in framework force developers to code applications in the bad way.
Technical debt - bad code in framwork is technical debt.
False belief of silver bullet - managers believe that own framework / factory is silver bullet. All application will be written in the same way and it will be easily maintainable. My experience is that it is simple not truth. Even with SW factory each application is specific.
Insufficient documentation - documentation is first part affected by low budget. Framework without documentation is useless. Reflector (.NET) is my best friend.
Insufficient user group - internal framework has only small user group. Small user group means small experience. If I'm using public tool / framework and I have a problem, I can ask question on SO (or similar web) or just try to find answer on google. With internal framework it is not possible.
Policy - company policy force you to use the framework to vindicate framework costs. This goes so far that the framework is chosen before the first requirement is gathered.
Complains to framework are prohibited.
Usage of other frameworks is prohibited.
Why I think companies are doing this:
Arrogance & egoism - sombody in company believes that he can do it better.
Ignorance - ignoring existing frameworks / solutions and the fact that only good frameworks survived long enough to be popular. Ignoring user group and already available informations on the Internet.
Management failure and incompetence - not understanding the impact (especially long term) of this decission. Decission based on incorrect informations. Management without SW development background.
I understand that sometimes own solution or framework for specialized scenario is needed but I'm tired with all these "great internal frameworks" for creating web or desktop applications. Am I wrong? Are these frameworks really needed (.NET and Java world)? Can you provide me some example or reason why it is good to have internal framework / factory?
Edit:
Thanks for answers but I expected some advice how to deal with a problem as a developer (except changing a job) not as a manager.
In my experience the most common cause of excess frameworks is... bored developers! Uninspired developers find that developing frameworks to solve their problems is much more fun than actually solving those problems - the end result is frameworks that suffer from all of the above (because of course the developer only did the fun bits), and possibly don't even solve the actual problem (because the goal was to have fun, not to solve the problem).
The solution is tricky - its difficult to know what it is that motivates developers as everyone is motivated by different things, however motivated developers who are busy doing things that they enjoy don't see to suffer from this ailment!
That said, well thought out frameworks when properly used are definitely a good thing - However if its only going to be used internally then it might be better to instead think of it as an extension to re factoring and code re-use rather than as a framework.
A classic sign that someone is suffering from bored developer framework syndrome is when a framework is being developed to solve the general case when there isn't yet a solution for the specific case:
How can you know how to solve the general case until you have solved at least one specific case?
Until you've had to solve the general case a few times you are only guessing that a framework is even needed.
The second case of course leads to the worst sort of framework - the mammoth generic framework that is only ever used once, to solve a problem which is far simpler than the framework itself.
Instead consider these sorts of frameworks more as an exercise in "extensive refactoring" - if the framework is produced as a way of grouping and tidying common code on an as-needed basis then the framework will grow in size and complexity dynamically - having already solved the problem before you start producing frameworks is nice too as it means you are already experts in whatever it is the framework needs to do.
Finally, try to keep developers from being bored (they get up to all sorts of mischief otherwise!)
Generalization is bad, but here is what I've noticed, especially in large enterprise projects:
Such behavior is generally driven by one of few more software engineers (they usually name themselve software architect) that fall into the descriptions you wrote in your question. Everybody needs to be proud of something to have the courage to wake up in the morning. I will add that they are usually CV driven for that reason and try to apply the latest design patterns without thinking about business implications and ROI. The key is NOT to hire that kind of person (or try to coach him/her to understand business consequences of his/her choices). Trying to make them proud of working for the company instead of working on their framework may help too.
Missed deadlines, bugs, high turn-over tend to be solved by applying fancy methodologies (usually badly implemented) like scrum or hired highly priced consultants that will make things worse,... instead of removing (or coaching) the persons that shouldn't have been hired at the first place.
Removing the person in question is in most case a bad thing since he OWN the thing. So teach him/her to understand consequences of his/her choices is probably the most appropriate way to solve the problem. But to do that, you need a good manager.
So my only advice would be:
Hire better managers that understand very well both business and software development. They won't hire that kind of person or will try to teach them how to consider business in addition of pure software development. They will also understands that the most powerful motivation fuel for employees is making them proud of working for that company.
I would add some other reasons these things evolve, and I have seen this in more than one place:
- Developer lock-in. Once you have the devs coding in a non-transferable skill set, it's harder for them to leave.
- Author lock-in. Once you have several apps under maintenance dependent on the framework, you have the organisation dependent on the administrative group.
- Political control. The centralisation allows the framework to become a channel for political control.
I've decided to get some experience working on some project this summer.
Due to local demand on market I would prefer to learn Java (Standard and Enterprise Editions).
But I can't even to conjecture what kind of project to do. Recently I had some ideas about C. With C I could to contribute to huge Linux projects. I don't mean that my work will be surely commited. I could get the code and practice with it. But C it's not right thing to get good job in my area. In case of JavaSE there is a chance to develop some desktop applications. But thinking about JavaEE I get stuck. I'll be very thankful for answers.
CodingBat.com will give you good core Java practice.
Project Euler is still the best for all around practice. You can use whatever language you'd like to solve the problems there.
For actual projects, I almost always start on something easy like a Twitter client. It gets you exposure to all the basics along with UI and network communication. You can work up from there. Just don't start with something so overwhelming that you can't figure it out and want to give up. That's not going to get you anywhere.
The best advice is: work on a project that you have personal interest in. Something based on your hobbies, maybe.
If that doesn't work, make a blogging / CMS engine. Or an online photo album. Or an eStore. The world doesn't really need another of any of these things, but it will give you some good practical experience with JavaEE.
Another benefit of "re-inventing the wheel" (for learning) is that you have probably already used systems like these described above, and you have a good idea of how it can work, and maybe you have your own ideas of how it could work better. That can make requirements much simpler, and also will give you a sort of benchmark so you can see how close you can come to building a tool like the "real" ones out there. And if yours is really great, well, maybe release it and see what happens. ;)
There are many Java-based projects on SourceForge. Tinker with one you find interesting.
I've implemented either a betting pool or a Baccarat game in almost every language I've
learned.
This type of software covers:
Dates and times, with calculations
Currency types and things that can be converted to and from currency.
A discrete set of rules that is easy to test
States, transition between states and multiple entities responsible for state transition
Multiple users with different views of the same model End conditions
Multiple player blackjack and poker would work also.
One caveat is that in my day job I work on financial systems and there is a huge overlap
between things to consider when writing a multiplayer game of chance and a trading system.
build an address book. the concept is simple, so you're not stuck on "what" to write. You can focus on learning your chosen language. You get experience in working with a database, java ( insert any language here), and UI design.
when you decide to learn another language you can create the same thing. Since the database has been created already, you can focus on the language itself.
the concept of inputting data, storing data, and retrieving data is central to a lot of applications.
Have a look around http://openhatch.org/ for a project that sounds interesting.
We have been trying now for a while to assist the management (of a customer) with the implementation of a a new system that is custom developed by ourselves, to their requirements. Their old system is text based (DOS) and their employees have been using it for years. The new system is Windows GUI and have many advanced features which will make their lives easier and their organisation more efficient. The problem is that the staff do not want to adapt to the new GUI environment and they are now resorting to be unfriendly and as unhelpful as possible, often placing serious obstacles in our way. The management is adamant that implementation must proceed. The system runs trouble free. We have been consistently friendly and helpful with all parties.
Any advise would be greatly appreciated! Have you encountered something like this before and did you manage to turn it round?
Note:This question is intended to help Programmers etc. with implementation difficulties by sharing experiences and factual solutions that worked. It is not intended to be subjective and indeed Programming techniques may help to solve the problem.
Use the tool
Somebody needs to really understand how the existing tool works. Not just well enough to walk through it; but well enough to do it for real. Why not take 2 weeks and go and do their job with them? That will both improve your understanding of the tool, and may foster a better working relationship with them. And while you're there, perhaps buy the drinks once or twice - it sounds corny, but anything that lowers the hostility, and lets you communicate.
User experience
Getting a good developer (or better: designer) who understanding user-experience is probably key. You can't just completely change their tooling and expect their productivity to remain the same.
Keyboard use:
Think of tools like Visual Studio, AutoCAD, etc - in most cases you don't need the mouse, and "die hard" types wouldn't notice if you took their mouse away. Try to respect this; provide shortcuts / chords (ideally the same as the existing system).
Terminology:
Keep it the same. Don't invent new terms for things.
Talk to them?
This may or may not be possible, but getting a few key users "on board" early can be pivotal; especially if you genuinely empower them to help with the user experience.
Find the faults
In the existing system. Take away their existing pain points and they may forgive you a lot.
Unfortunately it sounds like a case of needing to close the barn doors after the horses have bolted. You really need to get grass roots buy-in on the need for an improved system before beginning the project and maintain that relationship during the development.
By having champions of the system at the "coal face" level in the business would a) make sure you meet not only the management requirements but also the users goals which is all important in a successful system and b) the users get a system to which they have been a development party not just had a system thrust on them.
Getting people to moan about the short comings of an existing system is easy. Describing possible new systems before its create in way which allows the users to comment enables them to feel some control and gives you vital feedback. Be absolutely sure to identifier those killer gripes about the old system and make sure those are addressed in the new system.
Of course this all a bit late for you. The way forward is to create a review forum with the most vocal opponents and put them in a room with you and management. Get them to defend their reasons for not wanting the new system. If you can't show how your new system is better then perhaps it isn't. If you can see how the new system might be slightly improved (the movement may only need to be small) then do that, it may go a long way to get back the feeling of involvement you missed out on before.
I would sit together with the staff or a couple of the more loud mouthed opposers, go through what they find lacking with the system and suggest some of these changes to be incorporated in a future release(s). That way they will pay more attention to your the system and also feel more a part of the process instead of just being handed something like some peon. In addition it would also help avoid any misunderstandings about the system.
Get one / more of the user to be your champion by involving them in the development process. Make sure to choose the right ones. Hopefully one that you can reason with. When launching, do a launch event. Make it a big deal. Not necessarily applied to an application, but I've seen it worked in my previous work environments. If this is too late (you went ahead without any involvement from the actual users before), well... there is always things called staff turnover, lol. Out with the old and in with the new. Make the new users your buddy :).
You have to show some kind of benefit for making the change. A demo / mockup can be useful for this. Choose a manager to demo it to and wait. Let it become his idea. Then it might move forward. Being to pushy can cause a negative knee-jerk reaction which might block further consideration of the idea.
It is sad that software often gets replaced by a management decision without any user involvement and then people wonder why the system is rejected.
I've witnessed this first hand. A guy I once worked was told to develop a new version of an application "in secret". At the end of 6 months development it was shown to the users. It didn't meet their requirements and they were angry they hadn't been involved. Needless to say the software didn't make it into production and the developer left shortly after (I felt sorry for him as he had wasted 6 months effort and actually did a real good job considering the circumstances).
The chances are that the software is inferior to the previous application- perhaps data entry is actually slower (you will be biased as you wrote it- everyone likes to think their software is better).
Re-engage with the users, do some analysis and work out what is bad about the old system. If the new system can address the grips the users have with the old system you might be able to turn this around.
Edit- who was involved in engaged with your developers? Presumably the managers at the client, who probably never use the system? This is another big mistake people tend to make- managers driving requirements.
If the old system is perfect, then it never needed to be replaced in the first place!
I am a non technical person and have a small company who has been supporting my companies software for a number of years. The solution works well and permutations of the solution has been with the current IT service provider for over 15 years. I recently got a more established IT firm to do a general audit on the software. The current solution uses access as a front end with sqlserver 2005 as the database. The company who did the audit presented a list of faults amongst others that the technology is outdated, the solution is not scalable, bad design, non user friendly interfaces, tables not normalised, tables has no referential integrity, non use of proper coding standards and naming conventions, no application security only database security etc. The firm who did the audit proposed that the solution must be re-written and offered to do so. The current service provider aknowledges some of the findings but assures me that it poses very little or no risk to my business. To re-write the application will cost a lot of money. I am in a difficult situation and would appreciate some technical advice. I basically need to know if my business is at risk running on the current technology. I have a maximum of 70 concurrent users working on the system at a given time
Well, if you value Joel's word, i would say that you are indeed, risking alot here.
Rewriting stuff was and will never be a safe thing to do for a company.
To boil it down into simple terms, ask yourself these questions:
Are you having problems with the software currently? Are users complaining about the user interface, or is it particularly hard for new users to pick up the software when using it? Is data being lost or corrupted at any stage, or are you having problems retrieving reports from the database?
Do you currently, or in the future are you likely to need modifications? If your software is badly written, modifications will be more costly, and more likely to break the application and cause downtime in general.
If the answer to both questions is no, then you likely don't need to rewrite the software. You have to remember that good software developers see badly written software and want to re-write it properly - as well as this, there is money for them in developing the software, so their view isn't totally unbiased.
Like others have said, re-writing a system has its own share of risks - old bugs that were fixed a long time ago can rear their heads again, new bugs can be introduced, the developers of the new system can totally miss the point and make the system less usable than the previous system.
If there are problems with the current system though it may be worthwhile to consider having the system re-written by competent developers - if you opt to go this route however, make sure to get feedback from your current users, especially the 'expert' or 'power' users, to ensure that the system will fulfill all of their requirements.
Before you go view your problem from the technical perspective, you must assess how critical the application is to your business. It sounds as though you have a functioning application. If it delivers consistent behavior AND you have no need for upgrades / new development, you may want to leave it alone. We software developers love to complain about everyone else's code, re-write other's work with "elegant" solutions. That means money.
However, you have an investment that may need maintenance, and when you have the underlying code and database in dis-array, you will incur more cost because the application does not lend itself to be modified. You'll want to get a feel for how much change you need to support. Given that it has been in production for 15 years you've had a good run, so you don't have much risk there.
To do a re-write will cost you, because you need to recreate what the app does, and since the supporting database and program seem to be "de-normalized" and unstructured, it's going to a big effort. There are advantages to have a clean database model because it will be easier to do reports, export to Excel, etc. AND should you want to modify it the developers will have an easier time figuring out what to do.
To spend money to get what you already have requires that you challenge the firm to detail what additional benefits you'll receive. Are these benefits beyond what you're getting today, and will this firm deliver on their promises? Will your company be better off if the database is "normalized" but you receive no other benefit than what the current app gives you? Keep these in mind before you make the jump to a new platform.
Fix the problems in the existing app. It will be much cheaper, can be done incrementally, and if done properly, will result in a more maintainable app.
The suggestion to replace the ADP front end sounds like pure prejudice/ignorance to me -- they don't sell Access development so they want to build you an entirely new app.
On the other hand, the advice about the back end sounds like something that you shouldn't wait to fix (though it could require a lot of work, since existing data likely won't fit proper RI).
The front end and back end problems are two separate issues, and can be handled independently (though the app may need to be updated to reflect changes in RI -- impossible to say without a case-by-case evaluation).
I would hire a competent Access developer with ADP experience to handle the project. This will be much cheaper than the complete rewrite and you won't sacrifice any functionality, nor will you re-introduce bugs that have already been addressed in your existing app. It can also likely be done incrementally (depending on what the problems are and how they need to be solved).
The suggestions offered by the "more established IT firm" are pretty common for access/sql server projects. The suggestion is almost always re-write them as web applications.
I just did this myself last year -- took an MS Access front-end/SQL Server back end application, and rewrote the access part as a C#/ASP.Net website. We enjoyed better performance and more flexibility as a result of the switch, but the old front end had been around long enough that we never did get back all of the functionality that we used to have before the rewrite.
If you're actually seeing 70 concurrent users, and none of them are experiencing performance issues, and your corporate network is secure enough, then you may lose more by rewriting the application, at least in terms of functionality. On the other hand, this may be a good chance to evaluate "what works" and "what could work better"--and enhance workflows.
Excellent use of coding standards doesn't necessarily translate to an excellent application.
What prompted the audit? Does their solution address this issue?
Let's do the math:
People: 70
Avg. Hrs Using software/Day: 2 (Conservative)
Salary/Hour: $8.00 (Really Conservative)
Business Days/Year: 250 (Took out weekends & vacation/sick)
Cost of labor using application: 70 * 2 * 8 * 250 = $280,000 / Year (Could go over 500K)
How much improvement can you get? 5%, 10%, 25%
How much will the new application cost? 50K, 100K, 200K
If you are able to save this time, will your users be freed up to do revenue generating activites or will they just have more time to surf the web? You may want to create some worker efficiency factor: 90%, 75%
Simple answer... Most of the "risks" of using Access are surmounted by using SQL server as the backend. You already said your current solution works.
So it boils down to your future plans. If your existing application isn't missing any functionality that can't be provided via access I would just stick with what you have.
If you need new features I would consider a few things.
Are they something Access can't provide or do well (ex: Internet-facing Solutions)?
What is the potential benefit reaped by having the new features?
What is the potential cost incurred by not having the new features?
Can you put a dollar figure on 1 & 2?
How much to develop the solution in Access?
How much to develop the solution in C#
In other words, always do the CBA :) Better yet, do you own CBA, then ask both companies to provide you with one, and compare for fun. In the worst case you might get your existing company to come down on their price to retain you as a client.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
One thing I struggle with is planning an application's architecture before writing any code.
I don't mean gathering requirements to narrow in on what the application needs to do, but rather effectively thinking about a good way to lay out the overall class, data and flow structures, and iterating those thoughts so that I have a credible plan of action in mind before even opening the IDE. At the moment it is all to easy to just open the IDE, create a blank project, start writing bits and bobs and let the design 'grow out' from there.
I gather UML is one way to do this but I have no experience with it so it seems kind of nebulous.
How do you plan an application's architecture before writing any code? If UML is the way to go, can you recommend a concise and practical introduction for a developer of smallish applications?
I appreciate your input.
I consider the following:
what the system is supposed to do, that is, what is the problem that the system is trying to solve
who is the customer and what are their wishes
what the system has to integrate with
are there any legacy aspects that need to be considered
what are the user interractions
etc...
Then I start looking at the system as a black box and:
what are the interactions that need to happen with that black box
what are the behaviours that need to happen inside the black box, i.e. what needs to happen to those interactions for the black box to exhibit the desired behaviour at a higher level, e.g. receive and process incoming messages from a reservation system, update a database etc.
Then this will start to give you a view of the system that consists of various internal black boxes, each of which can be broken down further in the same manner.
UML is very good to represent such behaviour. You can describe most systems just using two of the many components of UML, namely:
class diagrams, and
sequence diagrams.
You may need activity diagrams as well if there is any parallelism in the behaviour that needs to be described.
A good resource for learning UML is Martin Fowler's excellent book "UML Distilled" (Amazon link - sanitised for the script kiddie link nazis out there (-: ). This book gives you a quick look at the essential parts of each of the components of UML.
Oh. What I've described is pretty much Ivar Jacobson's approach. Jacobson is one of the Three Amigos of OO. In fact UML was initially developed by the other two persons that form the Three Amigos, Grady Booch and Jim Rumbaugh
I really find that a first-off of writing on paper or whiteboard is really crucial. Then move to UML if you want, but nothing beats the flexibility of just drawing it by hand at first.
You should definitely take a look at Steve McConnell's Code Complete-
and especially at his giveaway chapter on "Design in Construction"
You can download it from his website:
http://cc2e.com/File.ashx?cid=336
If you're developing for .NET, Microsoft have just published (as a free e-book!) the Application Architecture Guide 2.0b1. It provides loads of really good information about planning your architecture before writing any code.
If you were desperate I expect you could use large chunks of it for non-.NET-based architectures.
I'll preface this by saying that I do mostly web development where much of the architecture is already decided in advance (WebForms, now MVC) and most of my projects are reasonably small, one-person efforts that take less than a year. I also know going in that I'll have an ORM and DAL to handle my business object and data interaction, respectively. Recently, I've switched to using LINQ for this, so much of the "design" becomes database design and mapping via the DBML designer.
Typically, I work in a TDD (test driven development) manner. I don't spend a lot of time up front working on architectural or design details. I do gather the overall interaction of the user with the application via stories. I use the stories to work out the interaction design and discover the major components of the application. I do a lot of whiteboarding during this process with the customer -- sometimes capturing details with a digital camera if they seem important enough to keep in diagram form. Mainly my stories get captured in story form in a wiki. Eventually, the stories get organized into releases and iterations.
By this time I usually have a pretty good idea of the architecture. If it's complicated or there are unusual bits -- things that differ from my normal practices -- or I'm working with someone else (not typical), I'll diagram things (again on a whiteboard). The same is true of complicated interactions -- I may design the page layout and flow on a whiteboard, keeping it (or capturing via camera) until I'm done with that section. Once I have a general idea of where I'm going and what needs to be done first, I'll start writing tests for the first stories. Usually, this goes like: "Okay, to do that I'll need these classes. I'll start with this one and it needs to do this." Then I start merrily TDDing along and the architecture/design grows from the needs of the application.
Periodically, I'll find myself wanting to write some bits of code over again or think "this really smells" and I'll refactor my design to remove duplication or replace the smelly bits with something more elegant. Mostly, I'm concerned with getting the functionality down while following good design principles. I find that using known patterns and paying attention to good principles as you go along works out pretty well.
http://dn.codegear.com/article/31863
I use UML, and find that guide pretty useful and easy to read. Let me know if you need something different.
UML is a notation. It is a way of recording your design, but not (in my opinion) of doing a design. If you need to write things down, I would recommend UML, though, not because it's the "best" but because it is a standard which others probably already know how to read, and it beats inventing your own "standard".
I think the best introduction to UML is still UML Distilled, by Martin Fowler, because it's concise, gives pratical guidance on where to use it, and makes it clear you don't have to buy into the whole UML/RUP story for it to be useful
Doing design is hard.It can't really be captured in one StackOverflow answer. Unfortunately, my design skills, such as they are, have evolved over the years and so I don't have one source I can refer you to.
However, one model I have found useful is robustness analysis (google for it, but there's an intro here). If you have your use-cases for what the system should do, a domain model of what things are involved, then I've found robustness analysis a useful tool in connecting the two and working out what the key components of the system need to be.
But the best advice is read widely, think hard, and practice. It's not a purely teachable skill, you've got to actually do it.
I'm not smart enough to plan ahead more than a little. When I do plan ahead, my plans always come out wrong, but now I've spend n days on bad plans. My limit seems to be about 15 minutes on the whiteboard.
Basically, I do as little work as I can to find out whether I'm headed in the right direction.
I look at my design for critical questions: when A does B to C, will it be fast enough for D? If not, we need a different design. Each of these questions can be answer with a spike. If the spikes look good, then we have the design and it's time to expand on it.
I code in the direction of getting some real customer value as soon as possible, so a customer can tell me where I should be going.
Because I always get things wrong, I rely on refactoring to help me get them right. Refactoring is risky, so I have to write unit tests as I go. Writing unit tests after the fact is hard because of coupling, so I write my tests first. Staying disciplined about this stuff is hard, and a different brain sees things differently, so I like to have a buddy coding with me. My coding buddy has a nose, so I shower regularly.
Let's call it "Extreme Programming".
"White boards, sketches and Post-it notes are excellent design
tools. Complicated modeling tools have a tendency to be more
distracting than illuminating." From Practices of an Agile Developer
by Venkat Subramaniam and Andy Hunt.
I'm not convinced anything can be planned in advance before implementation. I've got 10 years experience, but that's only been at 4 companies (including 2 sites at one company, that were almost polar opposites), and almost all of my experience has been in terms of watching colossal cluster********s occur. I'm starting to think that stuff like refactoring is really the best way to do things, but at the same time I realize that my experience is limited, and I might just be reacting to what I've seen. What I'd really like to know is how to gain the best experience so I'm able to arrive at proper conclusions, but it seems like there's no shortcut and it just involves a lot of time seeing people doing things wrong :(. I'd really like to give a go at working at a company where people do things right (as evidenced by successful product deployments), to know whether I'm a just a contrarian bastard, or if I'm really as smart as I think I am.
I beg to differ: UML can be used for application architecture, but is more often used for technical architecture (frameworks, class or sequence diagrams, ...), because this is where those diagrams can most easily been kept in sync with the development.
Application Architecture occurs when you take some functional specifications (which describe the nature and flows of operations without making any assumptions about a future implementation), and you transform them into technical specifications.
Those specifications represent the applications you need for implementing some business and functional needs.
So if you need to process several large financial portfolios (functional specification), you may determine that you need to divide that large specification into:
a dispatcher to assign those heavy calculations to different servers
a launcher to make sure all calculation servers are up and running before starting to process those portfolios.
a GUI to be able to show what is going on.
a "common" component to develop the specific portfolio algorithms, independently of the rest of the application architecture, in order to facilitate unit testing, but also some functional and regression testing.
So basically, to think about application architecture is to decide what "group of files" you need to develop in a coherent way (you can not develop in the same group of files a launcher, a GUI, a dispatcher, ...: they would not be able to evolve at the same pace)
When an application architecture is well defined, each of its components is usually a good candidate for a configuration component, that is a group of file which can be versionned as a all into a VCS (Version Control System), meaning all its files will be labeled together every time you need to record a snapshot of that application (again, it would be hard to label all your system, each of its application can not be in a stable state at the same time)
I have been doing architecture for a while. I use BPML to first refine the business process and then use UML to capture various details! Third step generally is ERD! By the time you are done with BPML and UML your ERD will be fairly stable! No plan is perfect and no abstraction is going to be 100%. Plan on refactoring, goal is to minimize refactoring as much as possible!
I try to break my thinking down into two areas: a representation of the things I'm trying to manipulate, and what I intend to do with them.
When I'm trying to model the stuff I'm trying to manipulate, I come up with a series of discrete item definitions- an ecommerce site will have a SKU, a product, a customer, and so forth. I'll also have some non-material things that I'm working with- an order, or a category. Once I have all of the "nouns" in the system, I'll make a domain model that shows how these objects are related to each other- an order has a customer and multiple SKUs, many skus are grouped into a product, and so on.
These domain models can be represented as UML domain models, class diagrams, and SQL ERD's.
Once I have the nouns of the system figured out, I move on to the verbs- for instance, the operations that each of these items go through to commit an order. These usually map pretty well to use cases from my functional requirements- the easiest way to express these that I've found is UML sequence, activity, or collaboration diagrams or swimlane diagrams.
It's important to think of this as an iterative process; I'll do a little corner of the domain, and then work on the actions, and then go back. Ideally I'll have time to write code to try stuff out as I'm going along- you never want the design to get too far ahead of the application. This process is usually terrible if you think that you are building the complete and final architecture for everything; really, all you're trying to do is establish the basic foundations that the team will be sharing in common as they move through development. You're mostly creating a shared vocabulary for team members to use as they describe the system, not laying down the law for how it's gotta be done.
I find myself having trouble fully thinking a system out before coding it. It's just too easy to only bring a cursory glance to some components which you only later realize are much more complicated than you thought they were.
One solution is to just try really hard. Write UML everywhere. Go through every class. Think how it will interact with your other classes. This is difficult to do.
What I like doing is to make a general overview at first. I don't like UML, but I do like drawing diagrams which get the point across. Then I begin to implement it. Even while I'm just writing out the class structure with empty methods, I often see things that I missed earlier, so then I update my design. As I'm coding, I'll realize I need to do something differently, so I'll update my design. It's an iterative process. The concept of "design everything first, and then implement it all" is known as the waterfall model, and I think others have shown it's a bad way of doing software.
Try Archimate.