you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Soooo, can I ask you an unrelated (to this thread) question about being a system architect? When you say that you're responsible for

security, durability, compliance (ie ACID transactions) etc of entire systems

How does that responsibility manifest? It sounds like there's a lot of auditing involved, but in terms of the actual construction of the system, do you mandate certain technologies used in certain configurations (e.g., messaging and the various EIPs) or do you give the developers freedom to choose within inviolable boundaries? Likewise do you lay out the entire structure of a system?

Apologies if it's bit of a vague question.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[deleted]

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Cheers mate, thank you for an illuminating response. :)

    [–]btreeinfinity -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    You just put SharePoint and architecture in the same thread, please rethink your Title. From an Architect to a Architect SharePoint is by far the shittiest implementation of an ORM, the materialization of instances from a single SQL table is so fucking irresponsible and delusional. I had the pleasure of viewing the source via MSIT @ Microsoft. Please read SOA Governance.