Architecture Reference

Appearance

Software Architecture Patterns ​

Software Architecture Patterns Graphics Coverage ​

Primary chapter graphic: Design Pattern Families, Clean Architecture Dependency Rule, OOP Design Pattern Categories, Design Pattern Families, Four Object-Oriented Pillars, SOLID Principle Design Checks. Accepted graphics: 6. Reviewed non-signal pages: 1. Open graphics in review: 0. QA status lives in graphics audit and visual review ledger.

Corpus pages: p. 101, p. 260-261, p. 264 Coverage: 4 pages

This chapter is part of Marius's owned architecture build corpus. The text routes decisions; durable implementation signal is carried by accepted graphics, reviewed non-signal decisions, and the linked QA audit.

Chapter Visuals ​

Accepted graphics carry the canonical design signal for this chapter. Each selected source page is either accepted as a graphic or explicitly marked non-signal in the source-faithful ledger. Review and QA state live in visual inventory, visual review ledger, and graphics audit.

Design Pattern Families ​

Design Pattern Families

Clean Architecture Dependency Rule ​

Clean Architecture Dependency Rule

OOP Design Pattern Categories ​

OOP Design Pattern Categories

Design Pattern Families ​

Design Pattern Families

Four Object-Oriented Pillars ​

Four Object-Oriented Pillars

SOLID Principle Design Checks ​

SOLID Principle Design Checks

Open Review Queue ​

  • none

Reviewed Non-Signal Pages ​

  • Software Architecture Patterns: API Gateway + JWT Map: source p. 101; batch 02; status non-signal/reviewed; ledger reason in visual-review-ledger.json

Use When ​

  • A codebase needs structure that keeps domain logic, integration code, and delivery mechanisms separated.

Avoid When ​

  • The system is small enough that ceremony would hide the simple path.

Core Model ​

  • Patterns are constraints for change. Use them to protect important boundaries, not to decorate diagrams.
  • Prefer explicit ownership over accidental coupling. Every boundary should say who owns correctness, cost, data, recovery, and change.
  • Use corpus page pointers for inspection, and keep the chapter notes focused on reusable design decisions.

Implementation Guidance ​

  • Choose a pattern based on the change you expect: UI churn, provider swaps, domain complexity, or scaling pressure.
  • Write the smallest useful design note: purpose, inputs, outputs, state, failure behavior, observability, and rollback.
  • Choose the first implementation that can be tested against the real workflow without hiding a known production risk.

Tradeoffs ​

  • More abstraction improves substitution but can slow direct understanding.
  • Centralization reduces duplicated work but can become a bottleneck when every team needs exceptions.
  • Specialized infrastructure helps at scale, but it must earn its operational cost.

Failure Modes ​

  • Pattern names appear in folders while dependencies still point in every direction.
  • The diagram shows boxes but not ownership, retry behavior, data freshness, or user-visible failure.
  • The system has no proof path for the highest-risk assumption.

Decision Checklist ​

  • Check dependency direction, module ownership, integration seams, and test boundaries.
  • Name the owner, source of truth, timeout, retry policy, and evidence that the path works.
  • Add one regression check for the failure mode most likely to recur.

Neutral Automation Examples ​

  • A payment module keeps domain rules independent from the provider adapter and HTTP controller.
  • A neutral internal automation starts with fixtures, then adds credentials, permissions, and production scheduling only after the boundary is tested.
  • A customer-facing workflow keeps irreversible actions behind explicit approval until metrics show it is safe to automate further.