adventures in coding

Hashes == 42, a love story


Thoughts on application configuration and snowflake implementations.

Hashes == 42 (how I came to love hashes)

Hashes have always just been another data type to me. Something to be used within a proper model. As I’ve been working more and more with automation, and more importantly, configuration automation, I have grown weary of applications defining their own configuration conventions. I fully understand the want to have a pure configuration model. Implemented with love and care to do exactly the things it’s supposed to, without the cruft of features that may never be utilized. The want to make the implementation beautiful. Yet that beauty can be quickly lost once someone actually tries to use it.

Configuration hashes

JSON is awesome. Really, it’s like a wheel. Simple, effective and compatible pretty much everywhere. No matter what language I use, there will likely be an existing JSON parser ready for me to utilize. This fact is important not just for the application begin configured, but also for the application that is providing the configuration.

Many times configuration is viewed as a person flipping flags or defining static values. As an application developer, this is not a “wrong” view, just a narrowed view. Once the application breaks out to a scaled deployment, no person will be defining these configurations. It’s this point that being able to define a configuration from a Hash becomes important.


I mainly use Chef, so we’ll just use that frame of reference for these exmaples. However, this spans any automation framework that allows for providing complex logic.

If I write an application that uses a customized configuration format it will require customized logic for providing that configuration. At the surface, this seems like a pretty small feat. A template can be defined so we can programmatically build the configuration. But, can the configuration be easily built programmatically? One of my favorite examples of this is the configuration file for an LXC instance.

1 = =

This small snippet shows how a simple configuration file can grow in compexity very quickly. How can this be easily defined with basic collection types (Hash/Array)? Ideally, we would like to be able to provide some sane defaults which the user (the automation system in this case) can override.

But basic types won’t cover this type of configuration. Hashes will end up stomping keys, and Arrays will end up needing custom logic on “how” to process them. Especially since we can see how Arrays may already need to be used when multiple values are provided for a single “key”:

lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = c *:* m
lxc.cgroup.devices.allow = b *:* m

The more we look at this configuration and its structure, the more places we find customized logic is required and writing a simple configuration file has now become a complete complex task.

What if JSON sucks

Everyone has their love and hate for everything. But the important part is the “serialization”. Have a strong love for YAML because you can’t use ERB in JSON? While that may open another can of worms, it’s still preferable to some customized configuration library. Since producing YAML or JSON is just as easy as consuming.

In the end, just be kind to your users. And not just the users running your application on a one off machine, but also the operators attempting to deploy them at scale.