Talk:4+1 architectural view model

Section "Problems with 4+1 view" (re)moved
I removed the following section from the article:


 * The problem with using OO artefacts such as sequence diagrams to represent a logical (aka functional view) of the system is that allocation of functionality to a entity (method to a class) must occur. Assignment of functionality to a physical entity in the logical view will constrain or pollute the design with implementation decisions made too early.  Assignment to logical entities would obviously be the preferred means but historically the distinction is clouded as the difference between logical/physical within the UML lexicon is in the manner of use and not in the semantics.


 * In fact, activity diagrams would be better placed to describe the logical (aka functional) behaviour - since they are lexically and semantically similar to techniques from the functional modelling era. Better still, Use Cases with Robustness Diagrams offer a better "logical" view without necessarily having to make allocations to either physical or logical entities too early.

This text seems to be a personal reflection, and it is not so much about the 4+1 view model, but about the use of different views and the diagrams to reflect those view. Texts like this should rely on reliable sources, see Reliable sources. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Logical view
I am bit concerned about the current description on logical view. I believe it should be "The logical architecture primarily supports the functional requirements—what the system should provide in terms of services to its users. The system is decomposed into a set of key abstractions, taken (mostly) from the problem domain, in the form of objects or object classes. They exploit the principles of abstraction, encapsulation, and inheritance. This decomposition is not only for the sake of functional analysis, but also serves to identify common mechanisms and design elements across the various parts of the system."

That is what is in the paper and it also describes better the way I perceive it being practiced. The key is that it is not the functional requirements per se, it is the abstractions that supports them. Currently is says "concerned with" which I consider a bit too vague.

Perlundholm (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Per,
 * I have tried to understand your concern here. The current article states:
 * Logical view : The logical view is concerned with the functionality that the system provides to end-users...
 * And originally Philippe Kruchten (1995) stated:
 * "The logical architecture primarily supports the functional requirements—what the system should provide in terms of services to its users...
 * Now I am no expert in English grammer, but I can find little difference. The first thing I noticed is that there could be a direct hyperlink to functional requirements. The second thing is that the first sentence stated "is concerned with" and the second "primarily supports"...!? The thing is that in Wikipedia (like in all other new text) we have to say thing in our own words. If you know a better expression please say so. -- Mdd (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link
the Mikko refeence link is broken.

This is the new link: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/architecture/library/ar-archman5/index.html

Have no clue how to modify it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.211.64.254 (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

--Riedel (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is available in the Internet archive without the figures: http://web.archive.org/web/20100827125953/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/wireless/library/wi-arch11/?