Skip to content

ADR-0001: Record Architecture Decisions

Status

Accepted

Context

As the myfy framework grows in complexity with multiple modules (core, web, cli, data), we need a way to document the architectural decisions that shape the framework's design. These decisions include:

  • Why certain design patterns were chosen
  • Trade-offs between different approaches
  • Technical constraints and requirements
  • Evolution of the framework's architecture over time

Without proper documentation, new contributors (and even existing maintainers) may: - Repeat past mistakes - Make changes that conflict with the intended design - Lose understanding of why certain patterns exist - Struggle to maintain consistency across modules

Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) provide a lightweight, version-controlled way to document these decisions at the time they are made.

Decision

We will use Architecture Decision Records to document significant architectural decisions in the myfy framework.

An ADR is a short text file that describes: 1. The context and problem being addressed 2. The decision made 3. The consequences of that decision 4. Alternatives that were considered

Each ADR will: - Be stored in docs/adr/ directory - Follow the naming convention XXXX-title-with-dashes.md - Use a consistent template (see template.md) - Be numbered sequentially starting from 0001 - Be immutable once accepted (new ADRs supersede old ones rather than editing) - Be written in Markdown for easy reading and diffing

ADRs should be created for decisions that: - Affect the framework's public API or module interfaces - Establish patterns that modules should follow - Make significant trade-offs between competing approaches - Impact security, performance, or scalability - Change fundamental assumptions or principles

Consequences

Positive

  • Historical Context: Future maintainers can understand why decisions were made
  • Consistency: Patterns established in ADRs guide new module development
  • Reduced Bikeshedding: Settled decisions don't need to be re-debated
  • Onboarding: New contributors can quickly understand the framework's design philosophy
  • Version Control: ADRs are tracked in git, providing a timeline of decisions

Neutral

  • Maintenance Overhead: Requires discipline to create ADRs for significant decisions
  • Learning Curve: Team needs to learn the ADR format and when to use it

Negative

  • Time Investment: Writing ADRs takes time upfront
  • Potential for Over-Documentation: Need to be careful not to document trivial decisions

Alternatives Considered

1. Wiki or Separate Documentation Site

Rejected because: - Not version-controlled alongside code - Can drift out of sync with codebase - Less accessible to contributors (requires separate login/access) - Harder to review changes through pull requests

2. Code Comments Only

Rejected because: - Comments don't capture high-level architectural reasoning - Hard to find and search across the codebase - No standardized format - Comments often become outdated

3. Design Documents in Google Docs/Notion

Rejected because: - Not part of the source repository - Requires separate tooling and accounts - Poor discoverability - No integration with code review process

4. GitHub Issues/Discussions

Rejected because: - Hard to maintain a structured catalog of decisions - Issues are meant for problems, not documentation - Difficult to reference from code or other docs

References