Often read the articles that java architect delivers design documents for developers. In software industry, what typical document a java architect should deliver to developers and client (users) respectively ?
The title "software architect" has as many meanings as there are companies with "software architects" on their staff.
Personally, I consider an architect to be someone who doesn't just "create documents" but who creates working software in addition to having an integral role in shaping the said software product's design and architecture.
In other words, I don't give much value to architects who can't code. Note that I'm saying "can't" and not "don't", because there are software architects I know who don't write any code but I know they could. It's the skill of knowing the consequences of one's decisions and knowing what you're doing that separates the "real" architects from those who'd just like to continue drawing their pretty diagrams and never have to actually do something useful.
I'm pretty sure I didn't answer your question, but I believe sharing my thoughts on the architect role might have some value...
I concur with Lasse. At the same time, depending on the environment you are working on; you might be the primary responsible person who is mandated to provide different design artifacts for ongoing projects.
Irrespective of what different agile gurus(here and elsewhere) are touting stuff, it all depends on the environment you are working as a architect.
An architect is responsible for coming up with an approach to the project that is going to work. Documents make sense to the degree that:
(a) they help the architect really create the starting point for a workable solution, and
(b) give the architect something that communicates to others the intended direction.
I saw one case where the "architecture documentation" was literally hundreds of pages along and thus rendered nearly useless from a development standpoint, although I'll acknowledge that at the time there were non-development business reasons behind the creation of that monstrosity (in other words, some of "b" above plus sales pitch, durned little of "a"). I'd focus less on "what kinds of documents should an architect create?" and more on "who are the players in this project and what do I need to communicate to them?". If the only players are developers and your manager, then "documentation" may just be the whiteboard in your office. If you are trying to impress a potential business client who hasn't yet committed to the project, the communication/documentation issues could be completely different. [ February 11, 2006: Message edited by: Reid M. Pinchback ]
I'm going to turn this a bit from "What would the best agile team do" to "What documents (buzzwords?) should you know to go for an architect posting in HotJobs".
I borrowed this list of uses for architecture documents from Carnegie Mellon. The original article is linked from there and has more info on such documents. This gives you a good idea of what lots of companies are thinking.
The definition of the architect role varies greatly between companies, consultants and teams. I think at my company it is probably the sum of all other definitions and we're on the way to having architects outnumber developers. We produce tons of documents ranging from physical hardware allocation with IP addresses and ports to high level software architecture to detailed design of selected parts of an application. They go to deployment folks, production support, enterprise architects for review and approval, partner systems for interface development and so on.
Let me know if any of that was on target for the original question.
A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
subject: what kind of document does an architect typically has to create ?