SSO MCP Server

# Technology Stack Selection Document ## Project: [Project Name] **Prepared By**: [Architect Name] **Date Created**: [YYYY-MM-DD] **Last Updated**: [YYYY-MM-DD] **Version**: [1.0] --- ## 1. Executive Summary [Provide a brief overview of the recommended technology stack, key decisions, and the rationale behind the selections. This should be consumable by non-technical stakeholders.] **Recommended Stack**: - **Frontend**: [Technology + Framework] - **Backend**: [Language + Framework] - **Database**: [Primary database technology] - **Infrastructure**: [Cloud provider / On-premise] - **Key Services**: [Notable third-party services or tools] --- ## 2. Project Context ### 2.1 Business Goals [Describe the business objectives this technology stack must support] - [Goal 1]: [e.g., "Launch MVP within 3 months"] - [Goal 2]: [e.g., "Support 100K users in first year"] - [Goal 3]: [e.g., "Minimize operational costs"] ### 2.2 Project Requirements **Functional Requirements**: - [Key feature 1] - [Key feature 2] - [Key feature 3] **Non-Functional Requirements**: - **Performance**: [e.g., "API response time < 500ms"] - **Scalability**: [e.g., "Handle 50K concurrent users"] - **Security**: [e.g., "GDPR compliant, SOC2 certified"] - **Availability**: [e.g., "99.9% uptime"] ### 2.3 Constraints **Budget Constraints**: - Development budget: $[Amount] - Monthly operational budget: $[Amount] **Timeline Constraints**: - MVP delivery: [Date] - Production launch: [Date] **Technical Constraints**: - [e.g., "Must integrate with existing SAP system"] - [e.g., "Team has expertise in Node.js"] - [e.g., "Data must remain in EU region"] **Team Constraints**: - Team size: [Number] developers - Existing expertise: [List primary skills] - Willingness to learn: [High/Medium/Low] --- ## 3. Evaluation Criteria The technology stack will be evaluated against the following criteria: | Criterion | Weight | Description | | :--- | :---: | :--- | | **Functional Fit** | 25% | Ability to meet functional requirements | | **Performance** | 20% | Meets performance and scalability targets | | **Team Expertise** | 15% | Match with current team skills | | **Community & Support** | 10% | Active community, documentation, support options | | **Total Cost of Ownership** | 15% | Licensing, hosting, maintenance costs | | **Maturity & Stability** | 10% | Production-ready, stable, long-term viability | | **Developer Experience** | 5% | Productivity, tooling, ease of use | --- ## 4. Technology Evaluation ### 4.1 Frontend Framework #### Option 1: React **Description**: JavaScript library for building user interfaces, maintained by Meta **Version**: [Current stable version] **Pros**: - ✅ Large ecosystem and community - ✅ Excellent tooling and developer experience - ✅ Strong hiring pool - ✅ Flexible architecture - ✅ Great for complex, interactive UIs **Cons**: - ❌ Not a complete framework (requires additional libraries) - ❌ Frequent breaking changes in ecosystem - ❌ JSX learning curve **Score**: [X/100] --- #### Option 2: Vue.js **Description**: Progressive JavaScript framework **Version**: [Current stable version] **Pros**: - ✅ Gentle learning curve - ✅ Excellent documentation - ✅ Good performance - ✅ Flexible (can be adopted incrementally) **Cons**: - ❌ Smaller ecosystem than React - ❌ Smaller talent pool - ❌ Less backing from major tech companies **Score**: [X/100] --- #### Option 3: Angular **Description**: Complete TypeScript-based framework by Google **Version**: [Current stable version] **Pros**: - ✅ Complete framework with opinionated structure - ✅ Built-in TypeScript support - ✅ Strong enterprise adoption - ✅ Comprehensive tooling **Cons**: - ❌ Steeper learning curve - ❌ More verbose code - ❌ Larger bundle size **Score**: [X/100] --- **Recommended Frontend**: [Chosen option] **Rationale**: [Explain why this option best fits the criteria] --- ### 4.2 Backend Framework #### Option 1: [Framework Name] [Repeat evaluation structure as above] #### Option 2: [Framework Name] [Repeat evaluation structure] **Recommended Backend**: [Chosen option] **Rationale**: [Explanation] --- ### 4.3 Database Technology #### Option 1: PostgreSQL (Relational) **Description**: Open-source relational database **Version**: [Current stable version] **Pros**: - ✅ ACID compliant, strong consistency - ✅ Rich feature set (JSON support, full-text search, spatial data) - ✅ Excellent performance for complex queries - ✅ Mature ecosystem and tooling - ✅ Open source, no licensing costs **Cons**: - ❌ Vertical scaling limitations - ❌ More complex sharding for horizontal scale - ❌ Schema migrations can be complex **Ideal For**: Transactional data, complex queries, strong consistency requirements --- #### Option 2: MongoDB (NoSQL - Document) **Description**: Document-oriented NoSQL database **Version**: [Current stable version] **Pros**: - ✅ Flexible schema - ✅ Easy horizontal scaling (sharding) - ✅ Good for rapid iteration - ✅ Native JSON support **Cons**: - ❌ Weaker consistency guarantees (eventual consistency) - ❌ No native joins (requires aggregation pipeline) - ❌ Licensing concerns (SSPL) **Ideal For**: Unstructured data, rapid schema evolution, high write throughput --- **Recommended Database**: [Chosen option or polyglot approach] **Rationale**: [Explanation, including data model fit, consistency needs, scaling requirements] **Polyglot Persistence Strategy** (if applicable): - **PostgreSQL**: [Use cases, e.g., "User accounts, orders, transactions"] - **Redis**: [Use cases, e.g., "Session storage, caching"] - **Elasticsearch**: [Use cases, e.g., "Full-text search, analytics"] --- ### 4.4 Cloud Infrastructure #### Option 1: AWS **Pros**: - ✅ Most comprehensive service offering - ✅ Market leader, proven at scale - ✅ Global footprint - ✅ Strong enterprise support **Cons**: - ❌ Complex pricing - ❌ Steeper learning curve - ❌ Can be more expensive than alternatives --- #### Option 2: Google Cloud Platform **Pros**: - ✅ Strong in data analytics and ML - ✅ Simpler pricing model - ✅ Excellent Kubernetes support (GKE) - ✅ Good network performance **Cons**: - ❌ Smaller market share - ❌ Fewer third-party integrations - ❌ Less mature enterprise support --- #### Option 3: Azure **Pros**: - ✅ Best for Microsoft stack integration - ✅ Strong enterprise focus - ✅ Hybrid cloud capabilities - ✅ Good compliance certifications **Cons**: - ❌ Interface complexity - ❌ Less intuitive than competitors - ❌ Pricing complexity --- **Recommended Cloud**: [Chosen option] **Rationale**: [Explanation including team expertise, service requirements, cost] --- ### 4.5 Additional Technology Selections | Category | Technology | Rationale | | :--- | :--- | :--- | | **API Style** | [REST/GraphQL/gRPC] | [Reasoning] | | **Authentication** | [Auth0/Cognito/Custom] | [Reasoning] | | **Caching** | [Redis/Memcached] | [Reasoning] | | **Message Queue** | [RabbitMQ/Kafka/SQS] | [Reasoning] | | **Search** | [Elasticsearch/Algolia] | [Reasoning] | | **Monitoring** | [Datadog/New Relic/Prometheus] | [Reasoning] | | **Logging** | [ELK Stack/Splunk/CloudWatch] | [Reasoning] | | **CI/CD** | [GitHub Actions/GitLab CI/Jenkins] | [Reasoning] | | **Container Orchestration** | [Kubernetes/ECS/Docker Swarm] | [Reasoning] | --- ## 5. Recommended Technology Stack ### 5.1 Complete Stack Overview ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Users / Clients │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ CDN / Load Balancer ([Service Name]) │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Frontend: [Framework] + [State Management] │ │ Hosted on: [S3 + CloudFront / Vercel / etc] │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ API Gateway / Reverse Proxy ([Technology]) │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Backend Services: [Framework] ([Language]) │ │ Hosted on: [ECS/EKS/App Service/etc] │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ▼ ▼ ▼ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ │ PostgreSQL │ │ Redis │ │ Elasticsearch│ │ ([Cloud]) │ │ (Cache) │ │ (Search) │ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ └──────────────┘ ``` ### 5.2 Technology Details **Frontend**: - Framework: [Technology + Version] - State Management: [Redux/Zustand/Pinia/etc] - UI Library: [Material-UI/Ant Design/Tailwind CSS] - Build Tool: [Vite/Webpack/etc] - Testing: [Jest/Vitest + React Testing Library] **Backend**: - Language: [Language + Version] - Framework: [Framework + Version] - API Style: [REST/GraphQL/gRPC] - Testing: [Testing framework] - API Documentation: [Swagger/OpenAPI] **Database**: - Primary: [Database + Version] - Caching: [Redis + Version] - Search: [Elasticsearch + Version] - ORM/ODM: [Prisma/TypeORM/Sequelize/Mongoose] **Infrastructure**: - Cloud Provider: [AWS/GCP/Azure] - Container Runtime: [Docker] - Orchestration: [Kubernetes/ECS/EKS] - CI/CD: [GitHub Actions/GitLab CI] - IaC: [Terraform/CloudFormation/Pulumi] **Observability**: - Monitoring: [Datadog/Prometheus + Grafana] - Logging: [ELK Stack/CloudWatch] - Tracing: [Jaeger/X-Ray] - Error Tracking: [Sentry/Rollbar] --- ## 6. Cost Analysis ### 6.1 Development Costs | Item | Cost | Notes | | :--- | ---: | :--- | | **Licenses** | $[Amount] | [Details if applicable] | | **Development Tools** | $[Amount] | [IDEs, services, etc] | | **Third-party Services** | $[Amount] | [Auth, email, etc] | | **Training** | $[Amount] | [New technology training] | | **Total Development Costs** | **$[Total]** | One-time or project-based | ### 6.2 Operational Costs (Monthly) | Category | Service | Monthly Cost (Estimated) | | :--- | :--- | ---: | | **Compute** | [e.g., EC2 instances] | $[Amount] | | **Database** | [e.g., RDS PostgreSQL] | $[Amount] | | **Storage** | [e.g., S3] | $[Amount] | | **CDN** | [e.g., CloudFront] | $[Amount] | | **Monitoring** | [e.g., Datadog] | $[Amount] | | **Other Services** | [Auth, email, etc] | $[Amount] | | **Total Monthly Costs** | | **$[Total]** | **Note**: Costs are estimates for [expected traffic volume]. Costs will scale with usage. ### 6.3 Total Cost of Ownership (3 Years) | Year | Development | Operations | Total | | :--- | ---: | ---: | ---: | | Year 1 | $[Amount] | $[Amount] | $[Total] | | Year 2 | $[Amount] | $[Amount] | $[Total] | | Year 3 | $[Amount] | $[Amount] | $[Total] | | **3-Year TCO** | | | **$[Total]** | --- ## 7. Risk Assessment | Risk | Probability | Impact | Mitigation Strategy | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | [Technology becomes obsolete] | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | [Mitigation approach] | | [Vendor lock-in] | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | [Mitigation approach] | | [Scaling challenges] | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | [Mitigation approach] | | [Team learning curve] | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | [Mitigation approach] | | [Third-party service outage] | Low/Med/High | Low/Med/High | [Mitigation approach] | --- ## 8. Implementation Roadmap ### Phase 1: Foundation (Weeks 1-2) - Set up development environment - Configure CI/CD pipeline - Establish infrastructure as code - Implement authentication and authorization - Set up logging and monitoring ### Phase 2: Core Development (Weeks 3-8) - Implement core backend services - Develop frontend components - Set up database schema and migrations - Integrate third-party services ### Phase 3: Testing & Optimization (Weeks 9-10) - Performance testing and optimization - Security testing and hardening - Load testing and scaling validation - Documentation completion ### Phase 4: Deployment (Weeks 11-12) - Staging environment deployment - User acceptance testing - Production deployment - Post-launch monitoring --- ## 9. Alternative Scenarios ### 9.1 If Budget is Reduced by 50% **Alternative Stack**: - [Adjusted recommendations, e.g., "Use managed services to reduce operational overhead"] - [Cost-saving measures] ### 9.2 If Timeline is Accelerated **Alternative Approach**: - [Adjusted recommendations, e.g., "Use more managed services, reduce custom development"] - [Scope adjustments] ### 9.3 If Team Lacks Expertise in Recommended Stack **Alternative Approach**: - [Adjusted recommendations based on existing skills] - [Training plan] - [Phased adoption strategy] --- ## 10. Decision Authority | Decision | Owner | Approver | Date | Status | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | Frontend Framework | [Name] | [Name] | [Date] | [Approved/Pending] | | Backend Framework | [Name] | [Name] | [Date] | [Approved/Pending] | | Database Technology | [Name] | [Name] | [Date] | [Approved/Pending] | | Cloud Provider | [Name] | [Name] | [Date] | [Approved/Pending] | --- ## 11. Appendices ### Appendix A: Technology Comparison Matrix [Detailed scoring matrix for all evaluated technologies] ### Appendix B: Proof of Concept Results [Results from any POCs conducted] ### Appendix C: Reference Architectures [Links to similar successful implementations] ### Appendix D: Vendor Evaluation [Detailed vendor assessment if applicable] --- ## 12. Revision History | Version | Date | Author | Changes | | :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- | | 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | Initial technology stack selection | | 1.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Name] | [Description of changes] |