This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Java Buzz by Michael Cote. Original Post: Re: lessconfig Feed Title: Cote's Weblog: Coding, Austin, etc. Feed URL: https://cote.io/feed/ Feed Description: Using Java to get to the ideal state. Latest Java Buzz Posts Latest Java Buzz Posts by Michael Cote Latest Posts From Cote's Weblog: Coding, Austin, etc.

Here's a partial response to some ferreting out questions from Dan Davies Brackett.

lesscode and lessconfig

(1) is less config orthogonal to less code?

I don't think less code and less config are completely detached. (The word "orthogonal" drives me crazy in it's fancy-pantsness.) Depending on how it's coded, less config could require more code. On the other hand, it could mean less code because you have fewer different paths to support. As always..."it depends."

Good or Just Nice?

(2) is less config a demonstrable, philosophical Good or just a frequent user request? (is there a difference between those two things?)

Less is always good in the world of computers and IT I want to live in: the one where everything works exactly how I'd like it to, out of the box. Of course, since not every program does exactly what I want, a defensive move is to add in more options so that the software can behave like Coté wants, like Jane wants, and like Terry wants, all by setting different options. That's config right there, but it might be unavoidable.

Or, you could take the maven vs. ant approach. Ant is lots of config. Maven is (on the face of it) less config. The trade-off is that Maven enforces convention and constraints that drive the structure of your project, for example, one artifacts per project, e.g., not however many JARs you want.

Sensible Defaults

(4) To what extent does "less config" actually mean "sensible defaults"?

In the same way that helpdesks are the first toe into more ITIL'ed up IT, sensible defaults are probably the first toe into lessconfig. On the other hand, a default implies it can be changed, which means more config. Getting back to the different desires of users above though, you usually want that.

Examples

(3) What are the best examples and counterexamples of less config around right now?

I look at OS X (of course! who didn't see that coming?!) as a less config platform. This results in really hokey things, like a GUI with an option called "Personal Web Sharing" to start up Apache.

And, for another who saw that one coming, you have rails with it's "configure by convention" instead of "configure by typing." That leap takes a lot of ego-deflating for programmers: " there's nothing special about your needs 80% of the time. You can do what everyone else does." While we may not think that programmers like repeating themselves, they sure don't act like it when it comes to config do they?

Canned Config

Along those lines, another interesting aspect is to think of virtualization. If you could just make a library of 1,000's of different configuration in VM snap-shots, then you could avoid a huge part of configuring. For example, you could create 100's of different web server snap-shots, each customized for different uses. There might be one that's the "Intel dual-core, Apache server with proxy for XYZ app, WebDAV file-share, and with subversion." Instead of having to configure all that, you'd just re-image with or deploy that snap-shot.

That kind of thinking with VM's isn't my own, it comes from several other people including whurley and Fred Johannessen..except they have even cooler ideas for VM images in the exciting world of systems management.

Disclaimer: Sun, where Dan appears to work, is a client. As is BMC, where Fred works. Fred also bought me lunch today at every Austin BMCer's favorite, Twin Lions. He is not a Wonderful Chicken man and neither am I.