What do you do if your software architecture conflicts with your design choices?

When your software architecture clashes with design choices, start by assessing the impact. Understand the extent of misalignment between architecture and design. Analyze how it affects functionality, scalability, and maintainability. Identify potential risks like increased development time or compromised performance. Assessing the impact helps prioritize solutions effectively.

Conducting a small proof of concept (PoC) can provide a tangible assessment of how design choices impact your system architecture. This approach offers real-world insights into performance, scalability, and feasibility, allowing stakeholders and clients to understand the implications before full-scale implementation. A PoC acts as a sample instance of the larger system, highlighting potential issues and demonstrating practical outcomes, thus facilitating informed decision-making and consensus among all parties involved.

Assess the impact of change , root cause the issue why the architecture is clashing with design. Understand the fundamental gap is any requirement changed post architecture, relook at goals and analyze the overall Impact that how much is the clash. If it’s minimal And not complete deviation it’s ok to fix it. Try to do 5 whys to vapid in future.

If software architecture clashes with design choices: 1. Evaluate the conflict's cause. 2. Prioritize elements crucial for success. 3. Communicate with stakeholders and team. 4. Reassess both architecture and design. 5. Iterate toward a compromise or solution. 6. Refactor code or adjust architecture if needed. 7. Document reasons behind decisions and changes. 8. Test changes to ensure they meet requirements. 9. Seek expertise for guidance if necessary. 10. Learn from the experience to improve future decisions.

Identify how the design choices clash with the architecture. Analyze the potential consequences of this conflict. This could involve issues like performance bottlenecks, maintainability problems, or security vulnerabilities.

Re-evaluate the project's overall goals and priorities. Consider if the architecture aligns with the desired functionality, scalability, and maintainability.

Frequent check-ins between different portions of a development team (especially larger ones) will lead to less clashes between the design and architecture, as well as re-evaluation of things that may no longer be relevant that could lead to positive change for either side (or both, ideally).

Revisit the project's overall goals and priorities. Is your design the most efficient way to achieve these goals, or can alternative approaches offer similar functionality while aligning better with the architect's concerns?

To address conflicts between architecture and design, explore alternatives. Revisit requirements and constraints to identify room for adjustment. Consider refactoring existing code to better align with design principles without compromising architectural integrity. Evaluate alternative architectural patterns or design approaches that better suit the project's needs. Collaborate with the team to brainstorm innovative solutions and choose the one that optimally balances architecture and design requirements.

If exists some conflict. In my opinion it’s “easy” to find another UX approach to match with the architecture. The principal part of the project is the architecture if this is good and works fine you can choose another UX

Brainstorm alternative design approaches that can work within the existing architecture. Research if there are architectural patterns or best practices that can help bridge the gap

Alternatives always been a choice, research and brain storming can help to bridge toward solution. evaluate also needed to prevent this happening in future, and also both side need to propose solution.

Don't be afraid to brainstorm together. Explore alternative design solutions that address both your vision and the architect's considerations. There might be a middle ground that combines the strengths of both approaches.

Clearly explain the conflict and the proposed solutions to stakeholders (developers, product managers). Discuss the trade-offs involved in each alternative.

If your software architecture conflicts with design choices, start by assessing the impact. Evaluate the impact of conflicts on system performance and maintainability. Revisit the Architectural Drivers to identify constraints and preferences guiding your architecture. Consider the project's functional requirements to adjust the architecture accordingly. Implement rigorous testing and automate deployment processes to ensure software quality.

If your design needs adjustments, clearly communicate the rationale behind the changes to the architect and potentially other stakeholders. Explain how the revised design addresses their concerns while still meeting project goals.

If possible, implement the chosen solution in small, manageable increments. This allows for continuous testing and refinement to ensure the solution addresses the conflict effectively.

Consider a phased implementation. Start with a core functionality that aligns with your vision and allows for further iteration. This allows you to demonstrate the effectiveness of your design while giving space for adjustments based on real-world testing and feedback.

Track how the implemented solution impacts the project's goals and the identified conflict. Be prepared to iterate further if the solution doesn't fully resolve the issue.

Once implemented, actively monitor the performance and impact of the design. This data can be used to validate your approach or identify areas for further refinement. At the end, Don't conflict with eachother. Try to understand from both side. ?? Remember, a good software architect is there to guide the project towards success. By working together through these steps, you can find a design solution that is both innovative and technically sound.

Severity of the Conflict: Not all conflicts are equal. If the clash is minor, a pragmatic solution might be to accept it with mitigation strategies. Team Expertise: Leverage the team's knowledge. Discuss the conflict openly and involve experienced developers in finding solutions. Documentation: Update architectural documentation to reflect any changes made to resolve the conflict. This ensures future developers understand the rationale behind the decisions.

If it's skeletal, leave it standard. If it's a defining design element that really holds value wrt what the project is, it might be reasonable to restructure to accommodate the design choice.

Generally, when evaluating or designing software architecture, prioritizing the "Why" over the "How" is crucial. Understanding goals, requirements, and business needs ensures alignment with intended purposes and value delivery. Focusing on the "Why" enables informed decisions supporting desired outcomes, avoiding unnecessary technical details. Also, trade-offs are inherent in software architecture, involving balancing factors like performance, scalability, maintainability, and cost. Architects must weigh options, making conscious decisions based on project context and priorities. Effectively managing trade-offs leads to robust architectures and potentially fewer conflicts.

I am a firm believer that a monolithic architecture, or high coupling, should be avoided as much as possible for long term projects in favor of cohesive modularization. A design with a high degree of coupling will always lead to technical debts over time. This concept not only includes code dependencies but technological dependencies as well. For example, a project relying on a very specific OS version can no longer properly be maintained once that OS is EOL. Or, a project highly coupled with specific licenses will be affected by usage policies changes. Ideal design choices should follow proven standards, and architectures should be future proof, including the possibility of swapping key components with minimal overall impacts.

Conflicts between software architecture and design choices in React arise when architectural constraints impede design flexibility or when design decisions conflict with architectural principles, requiring careful balancing and communication among team members to find effective solutions.