backstage VS c4-notation

apiVersion: scaffolder.backstage.io/v1beta3 # https://backstage.io/docs/features/software-catalog/descriptor-format#kind-template kind: Template metadata: name: sample-btpsubaccount-remote-template title: Remote Template for SAP BTP Subaccount Setup description: A remote template that creates a basic SAP BTP Subaccount setup tags: - sap - btp - basic - javascript spec: owner: user:guest type: service

Backstage is an open-source platform developed by Spotify for managing the entire lifecycle of developer infrastructure, including services, APIs, documentation, and more. Backstage streamlines the development process through its centralized and customizable platform, offering a unified dashboard that consolidates information on projects, services, and infrastructure. Acting as a service catalog enhances transparency by allowing teams to document and discover internal services easily. Backstage's extensible architecture supports a robust plugin ecosystem, enabling teams to tailor the platform to their specific workflows and preferences. The platform promotes collaboration, accelerates onboarding through standardized documentation, and integrates seamlessly with various DevOps tools.

It’s also well understood that having a k8s cluster is not enough to make developers able to host their services - you need a devops team to work with them, using tools like delivery pipelines, Helm, kustomize, infra as code, service mesh, ingress, secrets management, key management - the list goes on! Developer Portals like Backstage, Port and Cortex have started to emerge to help manage some of this complexity.

We use Confluence and markdown files in GitHub. I think we are moving a lot of our docs to Backstage [0] soon.

One process that ends up being really valuable for documentation purposes is our "Architecture Review Documents". This is a standard document that team leads fill out before starting work on a new Saga/Epic/Feature/whatever. It includes the scope and business value of a new feature or large block of work, high level technical architecture of implementation, the impact on existing database schemas and service APIs, etc. This document is presented in a meeting with technical leadership in our organization who deep dive on the topic and explore potential pitfalls in the plan.

The document and recording of that meeting live on forever, and this information is very useful when getting acquainted with a certain part of our product/codebase. You are able to read and hear clearly the intention of a certain service or module, and you can identify several relevant points of contact to ask questions to.

[0] https://backstage.io/

Check the Backstage repo on GitHub

Backstage - An open platform for building developer portals. [Internal Developer Portal]

So you've just bought a new platform tool? Maybe it's Hashicorp Vault? Snyk? Backstage? You’re excited about all of the developer experience, security and other benefits you're about to unleash on your company—right? But wait…

The idea is to have a central point where people can find standards, documentation, and designs. The team can do this with a specialized tool like Backstage, Confluence, Github, Google Docs, or some internal implementation. The software is not the most important thing here, but having an easy way to find what is needed for the person to be more productive.

What you are describing sounds a lot like C4: https://c4model.com/

The C4 model [0] provides a mostly sensible structure and techniques for representing pure software systems across different abstraction levels.

For systems involving software and hardware, or other complex interfacing (both technology and bureaucracy) this starts to delve into the universe of systems engineering. There's a decent assembly of knowledge on that in the SEBoK [1].

As another commenter has already called out too, one of the most valuable sources of information is also _why_ a system is in its current form and _how_ that's changed over time. ADR's [2] really do a good job at nailing this for just about any scale.

[0]: https://c4model.com

[1]: https://sebokwiki.org

[2]: https://adr.github.io

There a various standards for documenting software architecture, like arc42 or C4. While useful and somewhat well-known (there is certainly a correlation here), here architecture documentation can be further simplified, particularly due to the self-similarity of project and component. Following is a small template, that can also serve as a project's and component's README:

I would suggest that if your architecture diagrams are a bunch of icons provided by AWS/Azure/GCP with lines pointing at each other... you are doing it wrong.

The 'what does this box do for my system' is vastly more important than the 'which in vogue offering from my cloud provider implements it'.

I highly suggest folks take a look at the C4 Model: https://c4model.com/

We often use abstractions in software engineering to communicate complex architectures and software systems. In this article, we’ll discuss how abstractions are inherently hierarchical and how the C4 model provides a nested structure for defining your software architecture. We’ll then cover how IcePanel allows you to create interactive and zoomable diagrams for your audience to zoom in and out of different levels of technical detail.

You probably want https://c4model.com/ which explains what a C4 architecture diagram is. (See the first footnote in the article.)

I looked at the book OP is talking about and it seems to be advocating 'C4' (https://c4model.com/). IMO this is the same kind of block diagrams we end up creating organically. I dunno that I'd call this 'modern' or anything special, it's just what everyone already does. I've done hundreds of these and not once has anyone ever mentioned 'C4' or anything being 'modern'. Shrug