Spoiler alert: This article is not about inheriting your great-grandparent’s estate. It is rather about how embedding the principles of inheritance into the architecture of your chosen DevOps toolset can yield exponential results. And yes, I realize that you, the customer, have little to do with what a vendor builds its tooling architecture upon. However, you, the customer, can vote with your feet, to search out products that offer features such as inheritance, rewarding vendors that have it and punishing those that do not. The simple question to address here is, Why should the customer care?

Like anything that can grow, sustainability on scale is a key concern. How much will it cost me when I am maintaining 6,000 applications on this particular DevOps toolset, as opposed to the six applications I started with? You can also infer maintaining a higher number of technologies as having the same need. For example, if I need to maintain three different types of databases, two different middleware, four different hardware platforms on “x” different versions of operating systems … you get the idea. The larger the application portfolio (in sheer numbers of apps), or the more technically complex the portfolio (in sheer numbers of technology components in an app), eventually will drive you to worry about how easy it is to maintain these applications within your chosen DevOps toolset.

The capabilities of your chosen set of DevOps tooling will govern the costs of both the initial adoption of your services as well as the ongoing maintenance of the application portfolios you serve. It is hard to sell the value of DevOps to the business when it begins to see a one-for-one increase in DevOps engineering staff for every new application or technology venture under consideration. However, one of the chief culprits in driving large DevOps support staff organizations boils down to the lack of an inheritance architecture in the tooling that was originally selected.

Setting a Common Language

So before we discuss how inheritance will benefit us, first let’s agree on a common vernacular of what an “application” is. When you say the word “app” to someone, you get a wide variety of responses on what that means—from something that sits on your phone to a cluster of things that sit on the mainframe. Let’s begin by examining what an “app” is by the effort it takes to onboard and then maintain it on our DevOps sets of services (regardless of platform).

Consider for a moment the hierarchies by which we could describe software constructs. It is relatively easy to discuss how software works in terms of hierarchy. First, at the lowest layer, we could describe having multiple technology components (or the lowest level of a particular piece of technology that must be addressed in a build). Next, assembling these components together forms the picture of what a single application looks like. Finally, assembling multiple applications that have a common symmetry or common purpose together form a system or series of apps.

An imperfect but quick example could be the Microsoft Org Chart component of its Office application(s). For purposes of example we will argue that Org Chart, Clip Art Manager and Equation Editor are all components of the application Microsoft Excel. To build a new version of the application Excel, we would have to deal with each of these individual components that, once assembled in our build, would create a new version of Excel. When you combine more of the apps—Excel, Word, Outlook and PowerPoint—you get the system, or series, called MS Office. (And, yes, I know this is a less than ideal example, but it is meant only to illustrate a point.)

Assessing the Work Effort

The reason for discussing software in this way allows us to begin to discuss the level of effort to automate it. By addressing the work effort to automate each component (by type), we can begin to estimate how long it will take to complete “the automation of software.” For example, if my homegrown application has a source code component, a configuration file component, a database component and a middleware component, then I have four components I must automate (or include in the build and deploy process) to assemble a new version of my application.

This gives us a “least common denominator” language for assessing how much effort it takes to automate a given app. I have seen most common applications have only two to three components. But I have also seen several apps that, due to their unique architecture and construction, have 30 to 50 components a piece. Obviously, it is easier to automate an application with only three components than one with 50 components. The other factor we need to apply on the ease of automation is whether I have encountered this particular component technology before in my prior automation efforts.

Let’s say, for example, that the application I am estimating contains Java component(s). If I have encountered Java automation prior to this, I should have constructed a template for Java type component automation that I can use for a situation just like this one. In this situation a familiar technology component is far easier to automate than a new one (or, rather, new to me). However, if this is the first time I have ever seen Java, then it may take me a bit longer to construct the template I want for this app, and for future apps I encounter, that also use this technology type.

The Beauty of Inheritance

Here is where inheritance begins to play its critical role. If my DevOps-build construction tooling includes inheritance, then I could construct a “master” template or framework for each type of technology as I encounter it. A master template for SQL databases or Oracle or DB2, as an example. Or, I could make a master template for WebSphere or SharePoint types of technologies—one master for each kind of programming language we have in my shop. You get the idea.

Having done this allows me to have a limited number of master templates, in which I can maintain all the critical steps and processes my company wants me to do for a given technology type. If different business organizations or development organizations need a variation, they can create a “child” of my master and vary it according to their own needs. As long as the linkage is maintained to my parent/master template, I can make the big, overarching changes driven by corporate mandate, and the business unit can continue to vary items to their unique needs.

Having inheritance in this instance allows me to roll out changes to an entire organization, such as, for example, a security patch or process, for a given technology by simply adjusting the master template of that component. Inheritance automatically flows my change down to all the “children” of my master and possibly to all their “children,” should the need arise. The alternative is having to go through the specific automation of each application that has the targeted technology component and updating it manually, hoping I don’t miss one, and hoping the steps I may need to adjust do not break the old automation instead of alter it the way I needed.

Imagine having a WebSphere subject matter expert able to adjust every client application that uses your corporate installation of WebSphere by simply adjusting one master template. Or having a network guru, or database expert, be able to do the same for all applications that use their particular technology component all at once. Inheritance preserves the real-world need of having limited alterations of the same technology type within the same company, flowing down changes from parent to child.

Having a one-size-fits-all is simply not practical. Using copy/paste requires repeating updates to each impacted template or framework manually. But having the ability to create offshoots from a main, and not lose the connection to the main, allows corporatewide alteration from a central point of control. The costs of maintenance or administration are formidable; inheritance can reduce them. This allows a much higher ratio of applications or technology components supported by a much lower number of engineering staff.

A Wider Impact for Inheritance

Inheritance is keenly useful in release orchestration software as well. Most vendors offer the cut-and-paste approach: you copy the last the release you did, alter it slightly and use it again. That might work for some organizations. But having an inheritance feature creates entirely new dynamics on how a release is constructed for a given line of business and how corporate governance can be implemented with minimal effort. In this case, a corporate master release template can be constructed, and child releases can inherit from the master all the main governance required without risk of omission.

I realize inheritance architectures might not be at the top of your list when evaluating DevOps tooling solutions. But I would submit it is a strategist’s job (if you need one, let me know, I am looking 🙂 ) to point out how long-term sustainability can be greatly benefited by this architectural feature—even if the vendor would love nothing more than to steer you away from it. If you already have committed to a tooling solution, you may want to bring this up at your next vendor features performance meeting. If not, you should at least consider what having it means to your internal cost structure, and what not having it will add to the true cost of ownership of any proposed solution.

To continue the conversation, feel free to contact me.