I have been thinking about the idea that every application has a perfect minimum configuration. You know the Goldilocks Configuration that just feels good with the right amount of information. No more or less.
New applications we wrote need LOTS of configuration to work. This has been a big sticking point for our users and for good reason. It makes things hard and painful when you first use our services and continues to be a challenge while operating the services.
We want our applications to be easy to use and maintain. Doesn’t everyone? For the domain we are working in, deploying complex software, the list of essential things that you need to get your jobs done is very long.
Let’s take a simple example, cloning a virtual machine from a template. You need the following information to do something reasonable and perform the action.
- What do you want to name your new machine?
- What template are you going to clone from?
- How do you want to connect to your hypervisor? What are the credentials?
- Where do you want to store the new virtual machine?
- Which host should be running the new virtual machine?
You might be able to skip some of the later options, but doing so limits the control your operators may want. The ability to choose these options makes the system more powerful, but comes at a cost when configuring the application and any future maintenance on the code.
This was the exact problem we faced when we built Machinator, 1 a service that creates virtual machines. We could either have users provide all of this information through the API or hide it as configuration within the system, but would be unable to eliminate any of this configuration. From the required settings, we determined what our essential configuration needed to be for the operations we wanted to accomplish.
I think the ideal to strive toward with any application is to not have any configuration. Ideally your application would just work out of the box without any additional settings.
Configuration increases application complexity and the potential ways things can go wrong. Like any user input, configuration settings provide a way to break applications and need to be validated. This much more complicated when the settings are coupled to one another or infrastructure connected to the application. For Machinator, as underlying hardware changed these settings would need to be maintained. Monitoring and validating the settings is important and highlights issues with connected services.
Settings should be maintained over time and if you are evolving quickly can become bloat that makes updating your application harder. Testing the application completely becomes combinatorially larger with additional settings. You create the potential for odd corner cases that do not interact well or are confusing to your users. For our application we make all updates online and maintain a policy of “no breaking changes”. Extra design effort was needed to ensure new configuration did not affect old functionality or need to be configured before deploying.
I think software configuration and options are a case where less is more. Your goal should be to reduce the configuration so that only the essential settings needed by the application to run are included and no more. This means ruthlessly getting down to the absolute fewest options possible and simplifying how they are determined.
Eliminate Unnecessary Configuration
The best way to reduce your configuration is to remove as many options as possible. To have only the essential configuration then you must have the absolute minimum required for your application. How can you eliminate unnecessary configuration? I think there are many ways to do so which might be useful depending on your context.
Do all clients have the same value for a setting? It is a constant in disguise and should be treated like one. Use the value and remove the setting.
Unused functionality or configuration? Deprecate and remove the code eliminating the need to support these options. If you are keeping around dead code for a rainy day, remove it! You can always bring it back from source control if you need it. Keeping it around and maintaining it is taking your attention away from something else more important you could be doing. Sometimes settings are added in anticipation for a potential need, but are then forgotten and never used. These need to be deleted!
Provide defaults wherever possible. Defaults improve the “out of the box” experience and good defaults let most customers not care about a setting. Again, if every client uses the default then it becomes a good candidate to remove completely. Another technique is configuring groups of options which can be used together. In some systems we have used hierarchical settings to provide more flexible defaults or layering. We learnt this technique from hiera when first adopting Puppet and have tried to apply it when it made sense.
Does the configuration have an expiry? We use configuration for feature flags and other use cases that should be short lived. Put a reminder into the code or issue tracker to come back and remove the setting later. We included a bunch of configuration so more complicated options could be configured explicitly to provide a fall back if some infrastructure was not working or workaround issues in the code. We have since made these areas robust enough that the extra settings can be removed.
Can it be simpler? You could have users provide large lists of options or use a simple regex to select from existing items. Duplication is a good indicator that things could be made simpler. We were able to change our configuration to eliminate duplication resulting in a much clearer settings containing the bare minimum information. Remember DRY is your friend.
YAGNI. Some settings might not be needed yet and should be left until later. I was recently refactoring some code that implemented a state machine and a coworker suggested I make it externally configurable. It would have allowed the system to be reused for other activities, but would have introduced complicated configuration which would be easy to get wrong. We could happily defer this request until later when hopefully we have a concrete problem to solve and/or other systems that simplify the solution.
Conventions over Configuration
Strong conventions that imply configuration can remove the need for explicit configuration. This is a very powerful way to strip down your configuration size and complexity while retaining much of the utility and flexibility. This pattern is typically applied to code, it is also readily applicable to application settings.
Take the following gratuitous example:
This small but potent code will register every concrete type,
implements an similarly interface named
IService with Autofac, a dependency injection
framework. Code applying conventions like this helps make most programs more
consistent and as a result easier to understand. Many frameworks leverage
common conventions to simplify normal tasks like registering all ASP.NET MVC Controllers in Autofac.
It can be beneficial to allow users to extend or define their own conventions. For example, instead of something like my example above you could use the built in assembly scanning in Autofac to define your own conventions. Another example would be Entity Framework2 which allows new conventions to be added. If you feel allowing users to apply their own conventions is necessary I would recommend proceeding with caution. Due to the power this provides it can enable much more complicated runtime behaviour that is harder to audit and validate than explicit settings or using existing conventions. This is why extensible conventions is typically reserved for programming frameworks where the audience is expected to understand the trade-offs, be more technically inclined and can be tested more safely away from production.
We have many examples of conventions throughout our new applications. A really simple one is using filenames as identifiers to tie different settings together. In another application we used predefined directories to structure assets and then alphabetical order to process the files within the directories. These simple conventions made it very easy to understand how the application worked and made the assets more consistent.
Pursuing simpler configuration that contains only the essential elements for your application is worthwhile. There are many aspects to consider when simplifying your application’s configuration. Understanding what can be eliminated and where conventions are appropriate can help address this problem.
We have needed to work hard to minimize our configuration and always strive to reduce complexity by refining what is included. Machinator has benefited from these ideas and allowed us to progressively improve what settings were needed. We use conventions heavily to group common settings together logically. Cascading defaults for common options removes redundant settings and can be overridden when the default is not enough. Features that were once necessary have been removed to avoid unwanted choices and simplify the code.
With each iteration we have been able to refine what is included, remove unnecessary options, determine sensible defaults and leverage conventions to standardize our configuration all in the pursuit of our essential configuration.
What is the essential configuration for your application?
1. Yes this is the same Machinator from my Lib, Service or Component post.
2. Disclaimer: I have not used Entity Framework in a production application. My goal has been to keep all applications small enough that a tool like Dapper is more than sufficient.
The title photo was inspired by Essentials by Terminals & Gates. It did not fully turn out how I wanted, but decided to leave it and finish this post. The items shown are what I carry with me on a daily basis and are essential.