Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
148 lines (102 loc) · 4.64 KB

architecture_plan.md

File metadata and controls

148 lines (102 loc) · 4.64 KB

Class Architecture Assessment

Core Domain Classes

Completeness: 9/10

  • All major state machine components fully defined (State, Event, Transition, Region, Machine)
  • Rich hierarchy of specialized classes for each component
  • Clear inheritance patterns and type hierarchies
  • Minor gap: Could benefit from explicit interface definitions for some abstract behaviors

Consistency: 10/10

  • Consistent naming patterns across all domain classes (e.g., EventKind, StateType, TransitionKind)
  • Uniform approach to type hierarchies and specialization
  • Consistent use of enums for type classification
  • Well-structured inheritance hierarchies

Clarity: 9/10

  • Clear class responsibilities and boundaries
  • Strong separation of concerns between different types of states, events, and transitions
  • Well-defined class hierarchies with clear specialization purposes
  • Could benefit from more explicit documentation of some class relationships

Integration: 9/10

  • Strong vertical integration between base classes and specialized implementations
  • Clear relationships between related components (State-Region-Machine)
  • Well-defined event handling and transition mechanisms
  • Some complexity in cross-cutting concerns like history states

Runtime Classes

Completeness: 10/10

  • Comprehensive execution framework (Executor, Scheduler, Monitor)
  • Complete set of execution management classes
  • Well-defined monitoring and metrics collection
  • Full coverage of runtime concerns

Consistency: 9/10

  • Consistent patterns for status tracking and enumeration
  • Uniform approach to monitoring and execution contexts
  • Consistent separation of concerns
  • Minor variations in monitoring approach across components

Clarity: 8/10

  • Clear execution and scheduling responsibilities
  • Well-defined monitoring hierarchy
  • Some complexity in execution coordination could be simplified
  • Recommendations:
    • Consider simplifying execution coordination patterns
    • Add more explicit documentation of monitoring relationships

Integration: 9/10

  • Strong integration with core domain classes
  • Clear separation between execution and monitoring concerns
  • Well-defined interaction patterns
  • Some complexity in timer and change detection integration

Persistence Classes

Completeness: 10/10

  • Complete serialization and validation framework
  • Comprehensive validation rule system
  • Full version management support
  • Well-defined error handling

Consistency: 10/10

  • Consistent approach to validation and serialization
  • Uniform error handling patterns
  • Consistent version management approach
  • Strong pattern adherence

Clarity: 9/10

  • Clear separation between validation and serialization
  • Well-defined validation rules and contexts
  • Strong error reporting structure
  • Could benefit from more explicit format handling documentation

Integration: 10/10

  • Seamless integration with core domain classes
  • Strong validation-serialization coordination
  • Clear error propagation patterns
  • Well-defined version migration paths

Types and Extensions

Completeness: 9/10

  • Comprehensive type system with generics support
  • Complete extension framework
  • Strong security and resource management
  • Minor gap: Could expand generic type constraints

Consistency: 10/10

  • Consistent type handling patterns
  • Uniform extension management approach
  • Consistent security model
  • Strong pattern adherence

Clarity: 9/10

  • Clear type hierarchy and relationships
  • Well-defined extension points
  • Strong security boundaries
  • Some complexity in generic type relationships

Integration: 10/10

  • Seamless integration with core domain classes
  • Strong type safety across boundaries
  • Clear extension activation patterns
  • Well-managed security contexts

Overall Assessment

The class-level architecture demonstrates exceptional maturity and design quality. The codebase shows strong adherence to object-oriented principles with clear hierarchies, well-defined responsibilities, and strong integration patterns.

Is this level ready to support architecture of the next level? Yes

The class architecture provides a solid foundation for higher-level architectural concerns. The few minor recommendations noted above are optimizations rather than critical issues, and can be addressed through iterative improvements without blocking higher-level architectural development.

  • RecoveryHandler for errors

Next Steps

4. Interface/Method/Property Level

[To be designed after Class level approval]

The Interface/Method/Property level will define:

  1. Method signatures and types
  2. Property access patterns
  3. Interface contracts
  4. Error conditions
  5. Threading guarantees
  6. Performance constraints