3 ms·
I disagree strongly: configuration should not be code. Code should be code. Configuration should be static and simple. It is not trivial to tell what code is d
by XorNot 3y ago
I disagree strongly: configuration should not be code. Code should be code. Configuration should be static and simple.
It is not trivial to tell what code is doing, and as soon as your configuration is code then really you're developing a new application which implements another configuration language.
- diarrhea 3y agoSure, if your infrastructure landscape is describable statically, that's how it should be done. Most scenarios nowadays are _not_ like that anymore. There isn't 5 servers next door, there's 300 serverless whatevers half a globe away. Are you going to have 300 list entries, 230 of which nigh identical but 70 subtly different? Trivial in code, almost impossible to express statically.
- XorNot 3y agoWhat you're describing though is a configuration variability which would be expressable by a static tagging regime - still simple. If your configuration is getting more complex then that though, again, it's not really configuration anymore - it's a management application which needs to be developed and treated like that. And why it's that complicated should be re-evaluated - i.e. how come this is "configuration" and not something the application detects for itself? Why is it being surfaced to the user (operator) at all?