A quick thought.

Today I started reading Roy Fielding’s PhD thesis : Architectural Styles and the Design of Network-based Software Architectures and the first chapter begins with a priceless sentence :

In spite of the interest in software architecture as a field of research, there is little agreement among researchers as to what exactly should be included in the definition of architecture.

Of course he moves on to define it and it is a reasonably good definition, with encapsulation in the core of it and a clear explanation that every level of abstraction manifests an architecture of its own.

Yet, there’s something fishy for a topic that has professionals, books, courses named after it, whole hierarchies of people working in it and yet… what exactly should be included?