Skip to content
academia.sh
tr
Log in

Course Advanced

Quality Attributes and Governance

By the end of this course

Start course

01

Quality Attributes

Writing down which attribute a decision protects: gathering performance, availability, security, maintainability, and portability into a tree, measuring the tensions where raising one attribute suppresses another, building a security architecture with identity, secret management, and trust boundaries, choosing the scale unit, and maintainability metrics that watch the cost of change.

  1. 01 The Quality Attribute Tree Breaking quality attributes into sub-attributes and leaves: how many of thirty leaves tie to a number, how many of those turn into an executable check, how many of a known set of violations a check catches versus misses, and the person-hour cost of what stands in for the leaves that cannot be checked.
  2. 02 Tension Between Quality Attributes The measured drop in other attributes from a decision that raises one: building a tension matrix from twelve decisions, counting conflicting pairs and the most suppressed attribute, finding the attribute no decision improves, and measuring what a regression check catches, misses, and false-alarms on in a known set of violations.
  3. 03 Security Architecture Counting trust boundaries as a graph: how many boundaries there are, which data crosses which boundary, checks per boundary and unchecked crossings, how many paths removing a boundary opens, and what a rule catches, misses, and false-alarms on in a known set of security incidents.
  4. 04 Scalability Decisions Where the scale unit's boundary gets drawn: counting the copied component, the shared remaining resource, and the singleton that cannot be copied for the whole-system, service, and tenant candidates, and what the copy rule catches, misses, and false-alarms on in past scaling attempts.
  5. 05 Maintainability Criteria Observing the cost of change directly: running the same twelve changes against two structures and counting the files touched, modules touched, and spread depth per change, testing whether the metrics show decay over six quarters, and what a threshold rule catches, misses, and false-alarms on against a real cost record.

02

Governance

Auditing that a decision holds: the trade-off between decision speed and consistency across centralized, federated, and advisory governance models, fitness functions that automatically test architectural rules, checking dependency and layer rules at build time, building an evolutionary architecture that stands up to change, and embedding regulatory constraints into the architecture.

  1. 01 Architecture Governance Models Running centralized, federated, and advisory governance through the same decision flow: waiting rounds per decision, the conformance rate, caught and missed violations, the false alarms produced by missed local context, and a sweep of the trade-off between decision speed and consistency.
  2. 02 Fitness Functions Converting an architectural rule into a runnable number: writing two fitness functions over real module files, counting caught and missed violations plus false alarms against a known leak set, sweeping the threshold end to end, the rule's line-count and file-reading cost, and the false alarm's effect of getting the rule disabled.
  3. 03 Dependency and Layer Control Testing structural architectural rules against a real import graph: writing the same layer rule in allowlist and denylist form, comparing the caught, missed, and false alarm counts of five rule forms against a known violation set, the aging of sanctioned exceptions, and counting how many places a rule updates when a new module is added.
  4. 04 Evolutionary Architecture Checking a change-resistant structure: the same three changes touching 18 modules in one structure versus 5 in the isolation-pointed structure, isolation permanently costing 5 nodes and 4 edges, the fitness function catching 7 of 8 violations while giving 1 false alarm, and the same rule set flagging 5 correct changes as violations once a dependency is brought in-house.
  5. 05 Compliance Requirements Turning externally imposed constraints into a check: running five constraint types over 15 reported copies, a narrow access definition catching 7 of 10 violations and missing 3, catching rising to 8 and the false alarm to 3 once the definition broadens, producing 27,375 lines of evidence a year instead of relaxing, and the constraint costing the architecture one new component and 11 new edges.

Start typing to search.

↑↓ ↵ Esc navigate · open · close