Primary elements : Code elements e. Recommended for most teams : No, for long-lived documentation, most IDEs can generate this level of detail on demand. Once you have a good understanding of the static structure, you can supplement the C4 diagrams to show other aspects. The C4 model provides a static view of a single software system but, in the real-world, software systems never live in isolation. For this reason, and particularly if you are responsible for a collection of software systems, it's often useful to understand how all of these software systems fit together within the bounds of an enterprise.
To do this, simply add another diagram that sits "on top" of the C4 diagrams, to show the system landscape from an IT perspective. Essentially this is a high-level map of the software systems at the enterprise level, with a C4 drill-down for each software system of interest. From a practical perspective, a system landscape diagram is really just a system context diagram without a specific focus on a particular software system.
Primary elements : People and software systems related to the enterprise in scope. Intended audience : Technical and non-technical people, inside and outside of the software development team. A dynamic diagram can be useful when you want to show how elements in a static model collaborate at runtime to implement a user story, use case, feature, etc.
It is similar to a UML sequence diagram although it allows a free-form arrangement of diagram elements with numbered interactions to indicate ordering. Scope : An enterprise, software system or container. Primary and supporting elements : Depends on the diagram scope; enterprise see System Landscape diagram , software system see System Context or Container diagrams , container see Component diagram. This deployment diagram is based upon a UML deployment diagram , although simplified slightly to show the mapping between containers and deployment nodes.
A deployment node is something like physical infrastructure e. IaaS, PaaS, a virtual machine , containerised infrastructure e. Deployment nodes can be nested. You may also want to include infrastructure nodes such as DNS services, load balancers, firewalls, etc.
Primary elements : Deployment nodes, software system instances, and container instances. Supporting elements : Infrastructure nodes used in the deployment of the software system. The C4 model doesn't prescribe any particular notation. A simple notation that works well on whiteboards, paper, sticky notes, index cards and a variety of diagraming tools is as follows. You can then use colour and shapes to supplement the diagram, either to add additional information or simply to make the diagram more aesthetically pleasing.
Although the example diagrams above are created using a "boxes and lines" notation, the core diagrams can be illustrated using UML with the appropriate use of packages, components and stereotypes. The resulting UML diagrams do tend to lack the same degree of descriptive text though, because adding such text isn't possible or easy with some UML tools. Here are three examples of a System Context, Container and Component diagram for comparison.
Although the C4 model is an abstraction-first approach and notation independent, you still need to ensure that your diagram notation makes sense, and that the diagrams are comprehensible. A good way to think about this is to ask yourself whether each diagram can stand alone, and be mostly understood without a narrative. You can use this short software architecture diagram review checklist to help. Part of Simon's training course was a design exercise, where groups of people were given some requirements, asked to do some design, and to draw some diagrams to express that design.
Although this was a design focussed exercise, the wide variety of diagrams made it evident that the visualisation of ideas was a skill that most people sorely lacked.
The C4 model is essentially a formalisation of how Simon used to visualise software architecture, which has evolved over the years. The roots of the C4 model, and the various diagram types within it, can be traced back to somewhere in the region of , although the "C4" name came much later, around the end of It was created during a time where teams, influenced by the agile movement, were less than enthusiastic about using UML.
Whether you see the C4 model as a step forwards or a step backwards depends upon where you are. Unfortunately, UML usage seems to be in decline, and many teams have reverted to using ad hoc boxes and lines diagrams once again.
Given that many of those teams don't want to use UML for various reasons , the C4 model helps introduce some structure and discipline into the way software architecture is communicated. For many teams, the C4 model is sufficient. And for others, perhaps it's a stepping stone to UML. The honest answer is that nobody knows. Simon has personally taught the C4 model to somewhere over 10, people in more than 30 countries; with conference talks, videos, books and articles reaching many more than this.
Other people are also teaching, speaking and writing about the C4 model too. It's definitely being used though, in organisations ranging from startups to global household names. Terms like "process", "application", "app", "server", "deployable unit", etc all have associated implications, so the name "container" was chosen as a generic way to describe something in which components live.
From one perspective, it's unfortunate that containerisation has become popular, because many software developers now associate the term "container" with Docker. From another perspective though, there is sometimes a nice parity between a container in the C4 model and an infrastructure e. Docker container. While many teams successfully use the C4 model as is, feel free to change the terminology if needed.
This terminology context, containers, components and code works for many organisations and many types of software. However, sometimes an organisation will have an existing terminology that people are already familiar with. Or perhaps "components" and "classes" don't easily map on to the technology being used e. Feel free to modify the terminology that you use to describe software architecture at different levels of abstraction.
Just make sure that everybody explicitly understands it. Broadly speaking, there are two options for diagramming microservices when using the C4 model, although it depends what you mean by "microservice". Approach 1: Each "microservice" is owned by a separate team If your software system has a dependency upon a number of microservices that are outside of your control e.
Even with a relatively small software system, it's tempting to try and include the entire story on a single diagram. For example, if you have a web application, it seems logical to create a single component diagram that shows all of the components that make up that web application.
Unless your software system really is that small, you're likely to run out of room on the diagram canvas or find it difficult to discover a layout that isn't cluttered by a myriad of overlapping lines. Using a larger diagram canvas can sometimes help, but large diagrams are usually hard to interpret and comprehend because the cognitive load is too high. And if nobody understands the diagram, nobody is going to look at it. Instead, don't be afraid to split that single complex diagram into a larger number of simpler diagrams, each with a specific focus around a business area, functional area, functional grouping, bounded context, use case, user interaction, feature set, etc.
The key is to ensure that each of the separate diagrams tells a different part of the same overall story, at the same level of abstraction. See also Diagramming vs modelling for an alternative approach.
Due to the hierarchical nature of the C4 model, each diagram will change at a different rate. The focus of the C4 model is the static structures that make up a software system, at different levels of abstraction. Often this is because teams don't know these notations well enough, perceive them to be too complicated, think they are not compatible with agile approaches or don't have the required tooling.
If you are already successfully using one of these notations to communicate software architecture and it's working, stick with it. If not, try the C4 model. And don't be afraid to supplement the C4 diagrams with UML state diagrams, timing diagrams, etc if you need to. Yes, many teams do, and the C4 model is compatible with the arc42 documentation template as follows. A common misconception is that a team's design process should follow the levels in the C4 model hierarchy, perhaps with different people on the team being responsible for different levels of diagrams.
For example, a business analyst creates the system context diagram, the architect creates the container diagram, while the developers look after the remaining levels of detail. Although you can certainly use the C4 model in this way, this is not the intended or recommended usage pattern. The C4 model is just a way to describe a software system, from different levels of abstraction, and it implies nothing about the process of delivering software.
The C4 model is really designed to model a software system, at various levels of abstraction. Alternatively, you could use the C4 model to describe a usage example of your framework, library or SDK; perhaps using colour coding to signify which parts of the software system are bespoke vs those provided for you. If you're building a server-side web application e. If there's a significant quantity of JavaScript being delivered by the server-side web application e.
Here's an example. It also provides a basis for zooming in to each container separately to show the components inside them. This is your choice. Sometimes diagrams work better showing dependency relationships e.
Whichever you choose, make sure that the description of the line matches the direction of the arrow. Attach your diagram to Confluence and wiki pages, so they are accessible across your organization.
Even share important diagrams across your chat platforms and reference them during standup meetings. Tips to create an application architecture diagram Use simple shapes and lines to represent components, relationships, layers, etc. Group application layers into logical categories such as business layer, data layer, service layer, etc. Add text annotations to incorporate details about the structure, groupings, security concerns, types of applications included, application organization, and so on.
Integration architecture diagram While similar to application architecture diagrams, integration architecture diagrams focus on how the various components interact with each other. Tips for building an integration architecture diagram Show how current services are organized and exposed both externally and internally.
Indicate how third parties will integrate with the system. Specify how the system will be secured and managed. Deployment architecture diagram These diagrams help you to visualize network boundaries and the processors, nodes, software, and other devices that make up the system. Tips for creating a deployment architecture diagram Indicate network boundaries and areas where external systems can potentially connect to your system. Estimate instance size and indicate where new instances will be deployed.
Show how and where the system extends to other systems and networks so you can streamline shared resources and services. DevOps architecture diagram A DevOps architecture diagram is similar to a process flow diagram. Tips for designing a DevOps architecture diagram Define the current process flow as a baseline for finding ways to improve. Indicate what types of applications will be deployed. Display how processes flow across multiple environments.
Data architecture diagram As the name suggests, data architecture diagrams demonstrate how and where the data flows, is processed, and used.
Tips for drawing a data architecture diagram Illustrate how data is currently processed. Just drag the ready-made shapes and drop them on your page. One click to align, distribute, same size, and group shapes. Rich pre-made templates allow you to modify from existing templates, rather than start from scratch. Easy to add photos, images and edit text fields.
Nice-looking themes make it easy to change the whole diagram with just a few clicks. Get Started! You Will Love This Easy-To-Use Diagram Software EdrawMax is an advanced all-in-one diagramming tool for creating professional flowcharts, org charts, mind maps, network diagrams, UML diagrams, floor plans, electrical diagrams, science illustrations, and more.
The above system architecture diagram is designed for the E-learning System Business Architecture. The system architecture is the best example of the business or customer requirements.
The architecture shows all the components that make the system work. As mentioned above in the overview section, the architecture shows us the abstract and general view of how the system works. In general, this system works like, a user first registers himself for the online learning through the client side software and then this user information will be saved in the database and he or she will be able to see the content of learning.
Click [ Templates ] on the File menu and you can see a great number of templates in the Template Community. These templates will help you create diagrams quickly and easily! Step 2 : Open the menu of [ Libraries ].
Select symbols for drawing system architecture diagrams. Drag and drop the symbols on the canvas. The alignment and position tools in EdrawMax can help you arrange the symbols quickly. Step 3 : Design the architecture with Edraw's formatting and editing tools effortlessly. With fully customizable diagramming capabilities, EdrawMax makes it easier than ever to build out the system architecture diagrams.
Step 4 : When you have complete the diagram inside EdrawMax, share it with the world! Besides, EdrawMax also allows users to import the Visio files and convert your Visio architecture diagrams in seconds. By keeping your problems in mind the Wondershare has developed the best software that is designed to take your burden in itself.
0コメント