Platform or technology stack specific modifiers on the title of Software Architect are common. Most software architects know that the platform, like a framework, is an interchangeable implementation choice and not really part of the software architecture (see my post entitled Practical Agile Software Architecture).
Why the distinction then? Two reasons:
- Architect as Implementer - Many software architects are involved in guiding and contributing to platform specific implementation which requires specialization that is not specific to the architecture itself. I prefer this combination.
- Platform Specific Language - The platform specific software architect may be most comfortable or even required to produce artifacts that adopt the vernacular of that platform in order to make those artifacts more easily consumed by the implementation team.
The most common platform and implementation specific language elements in architecture artifacts replace the more generic terms of module, component, and software. Here’s an overly simple conversion table that I have found helpful for Java and .NET.
|package with public classes defining "port" and sometimes an entire jar
|namespace with public classes defining "port" and sometimes whole assembly
|sometimes jar only but usually whole container or daemon
|sometimes an independent assembly but usually a single process/web app
|Software (physical allocation)
|app servlet engine for container or independent daemon
|IIS web app for one or more components or an independent Windows service
Connectors are generally common across these stacks, with a few exceptions such as WCF and JAX. More often connectors are literally specified as a SOAP or REST or even a custom TCP based protocol. Message based connectors are very often technology specific, indicating the specific message queue but be careful to avoid limiting your architecture by specifying implementation choices. The implementation choices should be, as much as possible, left to the design and implementation team effort.
The majority of my implementation experience has been in the .NET stack. But software architecture should be the same across implementation stacks. Of course, there may be some things easier said than done in a specific platform and technology stack, and that may have an impact on your software architecture choices, but minimally so.