Post History

Personally, I'd say that it depends on the question. 

Over on that other site, this ban was instituted to avoid opinion-based questions. For instance, suppose you asked:

> Is Angular a great framework?

and received the following replies:

> Absolutely, i really love it!

> No, I hate it!!!

Would that be helpful to you or future visitors? If answers simply voice an opinion without giving any evidence why that opinion is correct, it boils down to a simple popularity contest rather than communicating any knowledge. 

That is, I think it is ok to ask for opinions, as long as you also ask for the evidence or rationale that backs them up. Asking about pros and cons is good start for that.

In addition, you might narrow the question further to avoid wall of text issues, and make answers more generally applicable to future visitors. 

For instance, in the linked question, I'd have happily answered whether replicating the DB is better than sharing a DB from a security perspective, but that aspect alone, if backed up by proper reasoning and arguments, is likely to result in quite a substantial answer. But "how to adapt the architecture" is a very broad question I could not possibly do justice to within the space and time constraints of a Codidact answer (even if I had all the requirement documents I would need to assess your application's needs).

Therefore, narrowing the question to the particular aspect you are interested in is even more crucial (and possibly more difficult) for architecture questions than for code questions.

All that said, I think a blanket ban would kill many good and valuable questions along with the bad, and declaring such an important subject taboo would leave significant gaps in the knowledge of our visitors. But we should take extra care to ask answerable questions, and take the time to back up our opinions with reasoning and facts.