I've been developing software for over 15 years working in Delphi and now Java. This site is a home for my open source projects, writings, articles and tutorials mainly focusing on Java and Java EE. Andy is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 34 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

Make a Flexible Architecture Now, Perfect it Later

  • submit to reddit

Your Architecture Sucks and I Don’t Care ignited a bit of a flame war as such topics usually do. On one hand I can see the benefits of good architecture, but on the other, this must be weighed against the real goal of software which is to either generate revenue or perform some necessary task. Universally, having something ugly that works sooner is better.

However, architecture also has a great deal of long term value, and that value increases with the size of the project Good architecture becomes necessary to expand, fix, and maintain the application as well as make it easier for newer developers to understand the working code. While every project should strive for the best architecture, initially, it should not be the most important thing.

The best way to strike a balance between the two is to design it initially so that it is good enough to work with. Your code should be written such that it is easy to refactor at a later date so you can easily retrofit the architectural improvements. Think of it as an agile architecture which starts out rough and can slowly be refined over time as the developers get more of an idea of what the architecture needs. The key factor is to not worry about writing perfect code, just write code that can easily be refactored.

Don’t Repeat Yourself (DRY)

Repeated code means that if you change it once, you have to change it a lot of places. DRY means you use constant values and methods instead of re-iterating the code each time. Once you have those methods in place you can move them around if you want to change the architecture or re-write them if you are not happy with them for other reasons. This also produces code that has shorter methods since you end up using function calls more instead of verbatim code everywhere. Consider DRY the foundation on which refactoring is built.

Rough out the layers

Chances are that while you aren’t going to know specifically what beans each layer needs, you will have an idea of what layers you will need and you should write your code accordingly. By spacing out your code you will give it room to move and breathe.

If you’ve ever moved house, when everything is unloaded off the truck, you don’t put it all in one room and then try and pull out different items and move it to its final location. Instead, you put items approximately where they are supposed to go so you can easily move items around without having to disturb everything else around it. The same applies to code, write it in the layer where you expect it will stay and give it room to move. When you do move it, it will be easier since you have to change less code to relocate it.

Typically, you will have classes that belong in the view layer to interact with the view components and deal with things like form postbacks and parameters. This might take the form of Spring MVC Controllers, JSF backing beans or a Wicket Page. You will have a business layer that the view layers use to get things done that handle the business rules and trigger changes to the database or sending emails etc. Lastly, there is the data layer which the business layer uses to access and modify external data. This layer could be optional as it could be part of the business layer but long term, probably shouldn’t. Often the business layer controls transactions and could make multiple calls to the data layer in the same transaction. Using this basic template, you give your code enough space to enable you to move it around later on.

With the DRY principle, if you put functionality in methods you can choose to relocate the code to a new layer and call the code in the new layer from the old method. Eventually, you can remove the old bean method and call the layer directly from the bean methods. Layers also help enforce the DRY principle since certain functions will belong to certain layers requiring you to create reusable methods. IDEs help a lot with this since if you move or relocate a method, it will complain about it.


Layers promote testability of applications and when you change different parts of the layers in the refactoring process your unit tests will tell you if you broke something as you go along. For certain types of code, one of the equally important parts of unit tests is the ability to perform regression tests to see if you broke something. It is a sure fire way to test that your new change works with the entire code base.


When you start a project , there are plenty of tough questions that depend on the application you are writing, but by layering your code and ensuring that functionality takes place only in well defined points which you can alter or relocate, you ensure that your code remains able to change based on architectural decisions and business demands.


From http://www.andygibson.net/blog/article/make-a-flexible-architecture-now-perfect-it-later/

Published at DZone with permission of Andy Gibson, author and DZone MVB.

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)


Josh Marotti replied on Mon, 2011/01/17 - 4:15pm

"Universally, having something ugly that works sooner is better."

Ugh, I hate this statement. Especially when your next sentence (in the next paragraph) is:

"However, architecture also has a great deal of long term value"

You just admitted to having a short-sighted, high risk view on software. 


Software is 10-20% implementation, 80-90% maintenance.  Easier to maintain code is universally better.  You save money through the life of the software.  A better long term investment with less risk.

Andy Gibson replied on Mon, 2011/01/17 - 9:58pm

>You just admitted to having a short-sighted, high risk view on software.

Not at all since by the same measure, I also admitted to having a long-term low risk view on software with the next statement. It's a device often used in writing to show two different extremes before finding a happy mid-point .

> Ugh, I hate this statement

Universally, from the perspective of the customer (either buying or internal) sooner and ugly is better since they don't care about architecture. Try telling your boss that the project is complete and working but you want to take a couple of months to pretty up the internals with no benefit to the users, but it will make maintenance easier for you. Agile methodologies and Alpha/Beta tests talk about releasing early and often and getting things in front of users and I'm going to guess these aren't pristine versions.

 The nice thing about the 90% maintenance is that you don't need to do it if your product bombs upon release to the public. Products are a short term high risk unless it is a foolproof idea with a 100% guaranteed chance of success.

For in-house projects where there is nothing but long term, you don't need to take a waterfall type approach to architecture where you need months or years to map out for every single potential change. The point of the article is that as long as you build it with a basic simple architecture, follow some good programming guidelines, you can get the code out faster with a good design that lends itself well to improvements making that 90% maintenance easier.


Josh Marotti replied on Tue, 2011/01/18 - 12:04pm in response to: Andy Gibson

Alright, I can see your arguments.  Sorry if I sounded a bit harsh (but as you said, you are bringing up a subject that can be touchy).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.