Is application modernization on your priority list this year? If you’re hoping to transform applications for the cloud to better adapt to constant changes, support a hybrid workforce, and remain competitive, you’re on the right track. One of the smartest things you can do first is to address technical debt—not just to identify it but eliminating it to ensure your modernization efforts will pay off and not cause more problems.
Technical debt is the Achilles heel of many organizations. Some ignore it because it’s just too daunting to tackle. Others struggle to obtain executive buy-in and budget. And then there are those that jump in without the right strategy and tools, quickly finding themselves lost, over budget, and not much further along than when they began. If these pain points sound familiar, this ebook will be a valuable resource.
This Intellyx & vFunctioneBook for software architects and CIOs covers the following:
How technical debt accumulates and its impact on modernization and the organization
The value of breaking down monolithic applications into microservices
How to accurately calculate current technical debt with a data-driven plan that helps build a business case
The four primary approaches to rationalizing applications and how rearchitecting is typically the best method to resolve application technical debt issues
Examples of Java EE technical debt roadblocks and how to overcome them
Why continuous modernization is essential in today’s world
Modernizing monolithic legacy applications can be a massive, difficult, and time-consuming process wrought with risks, yet if organizations need those apps to continue fulfilling business-critical functions, transformation is critical. But how can architects be certain that changes to the legacy code only impact the targeted function?
Enter the Strangler Fig Pattern. This application modernization approach allows architects to replace each function with an independent microservice without having to rewrite the entire app all at once. The Strangler Fig Pattern offers at least seven advantages over direct migration and can prevent destructive coding anti-patterns.
This ebook for software architects and CIOs covers:
How the challenges of application modernization drive the need for a safer method to update legacy apps
How the Strangler Fig Pattern works and the advantages it delivers
How to avoid dangerous coding anti-patterns that result in technical debt
How to maximize the benefits of the strangler fig in modernizing your legacy apps by following five best practices
How AWS Migration Hub Refactor Spaces and vFunction work together to accelerate the modernization process by at least a factor of 15
The term was coined in 2004 by Martin Fowler, Chief Scientist of Thoughtworks. He observed that strangler fig seeds germinate in the upper branches of a tree and their roots surround the tree as they gradually work their way down to the ground. As the strangler fig’s root system expands over many years, it eventually strangles its host tree. In essence, the strangler fig replaces the original tree.
Fowler saw this as a metaphor for how large software systems could be refactored by gradually implementing a new system that surrounds and slowly, perhaps over several years, strangles and ultimately replaces the original.
The Strangler Fig Pattern thus creates a new structure of microservices surrounding a monolithic legacy application. Each microservice implements a single function that either replaces a function in the original app or creates a new one.
As new microservices are added over time, they eventually take over all the functions of the original app, figuratively strangling it so that it is slowly replaced by the microservices architecture built around it.
How the Strangler Fig Pattern Works
Let’s take a closer look at how the Strangler Fig Pattern does its magic.
It starts with the introduction of an interface layer called a façade. All requests to the application go through the façade. At first, the façade is simply a direct pass-through to the legacy app. But as each new microservice is added, the façade redirects any call that invokes the associated function from the original app to the equivalent microservice.
Microservices are tested by running them in parallel with the original code to ensure that both respond identically to the same inputs. Once a microservice’s functionality is verified, the façade will always serve requests for that function to the microservice and never to the original app.
That function in the original code is then effectively replaced. As additional microservices are added and verified, the façade will eventually be serving all requests to the microservices and none to the original codebase. At that point, the original monolithic app is finally able to be decommissioned.
Why the Strangler Fig Pattern is Beneficial for Modernization
Because monoliths have hidden functionalities and dependencies interlaced throughout the codebase, it’s difficult for developers to untangle the morass to understand what the code is doing. Documentation is often inadequate if not entirely lacking, and with the original developers potentially gone, nobody on the engineering team has a comprehensive understanding of what the app does and how.
All these factors make implementing changes to monolithic apps very risky. As we’ve seen, alterations to any part of the code can have unforeseeable consequences. In addition, because undocumented functions or business processes may be hidden in the code, developers who are refactoring the app can easily overlook important functions and fail to include them in the new microservices implementation.
Any attempt to replace a monolithic app in one fell swoop is almost guaranteed to introduce bugs that will cause significant downtime once you switch over to the new codebase.
With the Strangler Fig Pattern, the transition from the original app to the new one is done step by step, one piece of functionality at a time. At each step, developers implement a single microservice and fully test it before incorporating it into the app. That in itself substantially reduces the potential that a change might break the app since the risk of a small change is much less than the risk of a large one.
Other benefits of employing the Strangler Fig Pattern include:
You get immediate operational gains as each new microservice takes over, including greater adaptability, agility, and performance.
Because you can run each microservice in parallel with the original code for QA purposes, downtime is drastically reduced.
Rolling back a change that isn’t working correctly is far simpler. Each new microservice deployment can be quickly and cleanly reversed.
You don’t have to maintain two separate codebases (the original and the new).
Since the app is never taken offline, you can implement the modernization project at a pace that’s comfortable for your team (and budget).
Four Best Practices to Prepare for the Strangler Fig Pattern
Before you can leverage the Strangler Fig Pattern, there is some work to do. Prior to having a decoupled microservice in hand and ready to deploy, architects starting with a monolith should do a few things…
Examples include identifying service domains, consolidating duplicate services, and determining which functionality actually makes sense to decompose into an individual microservice. Let’s look at some of these best practices in action.
Best Practice #1 – Automate the Identification of Services and Domains
Surveys have shown that the days of manually analyzing a monolith using sticky notes on whiteboards take too long, cost too much and rarely end in success. Which architect or developer in your team has the time and ability to stop what they’re doing to review millions of lines of code and tens of thousands of classes by hand? Large monolithic applications need an automated, data-driven way to identify potential service boundaries.
What You Can Do
Let’s select a readily available, real-world application as the platform in which we’ll explore these best practices. As a tutorial example for Java developers, Oracle offers a medical records (MedRec) application — also known as the Avitek Medical Records application,which is a traditional monolith using WebLogic and Java EE. Using vFunction, we will initiate a “learning” phase using dynamic analysis, static analysis and machine learning based on the call tree and system flows to identify ideal service domains.
In Image 1, we see a services graph in which services are shown as spheres of different sizes and colors, as well as lines (edges) connecting them. Each sphere represents a service that vFunction has automatically identified as related to a specific domain. These services are named and detailed on the right side of the screen.
The size of the sphere represents the number of classes contained within the service. The colors represent the level of class “exclusivity” within each service, referring to the percentage of classes that exist only within that service, as opposed to classes shared across multiple services.
Red represents low exclusivity, blue medium exclusivity and green high exclusivity. Higher class exclusivity indicates better boundaries between services, fewer interdependencies and less code duplication. Taken together, these traits indicate that it will be less complex to refactor highly-exclusive services into microservices.
The solid lines here represent common resources that are shared across the services (Image 2). Common resources include things like beans, synchronization objects, read-only DB transactions and tables, read-write DB transactions and tables, websockets, files and embedded files. The dashed lines represent method calls between the services (Image 3).
The black sphere in the middle represents classes still in the monolith, which contains classes and resources that are not specific to any particular domain, and thus have not been selected as candidates for extraction.
By using automation and AI to analyze and expose new service boundaries previously contained in the black box of the monolith, you are now able to begin manipulating services inside of a suggested reference architecture that has cleared the way to make better decisions based on data-driven analysis.
Best Practice #2: Consolidate Functionality and Avoid Duplication
When everything was in the monolith, your visibility was somewhat limited. If you’re able to expose the suggested service boundaries, you can begin to make decisions and test design concepts — for example, identifying overlapping functionality in multiple services.
What You Can Do
When does it make sense to consolidate disparate services with similar functionality into a single microservice? The most basic example is that, as an architect, you may see an opportunity to combine two services that appear to overlap — and we can identify these services based on the class names and level of class exclusivity.
In the services graph (Image 4), we see two similar chat services outlined with a white ring: PatientChatWebSocket and PhysicianChatWebSocket. We can see that the physician chat service (red) has 0% dynamic exclusivity, and that the patient chat service (blue) has slightly higher exclusivity at 33%.
Neither of these services is using any shared resources, which indicates that we can merge these into a single service without entangling anything by our actions.
By merging two similar services, you are able to consolidate duplicate functionality as well as increase the exclusivity of classes in the newly merged service (Image 5). As we’re using vFunction Platform in this example, everything needed to logically bind these services is taken care of — classes, entry points and resources are intelligently updated.
Merging services is as simple as dragging and dropping one service onto the other, and after vFunction Platform recalculates the analysis of this action, we see that the sphere is now green, with a dynamic exclusivity of 75% (Image 6). This indicates that the newly-merged service is less interconnected at the class level and gives us the opportunity to extract this service with less complexity.
Best Practice #3: Create Accurate and Meaningful Names for Services
We all know that naming things is hard. When dealing with monolithic services, we can really only use the class names to figure out what is going on. With this information alone, it’s difficult to accurately identify which classes and functionality may belong to a particular domain.
What You Can Do
In our example, vFunction has automatically derived service domain names from the class names on the right side of screen in Image 7. As an architect, you need to be able to rename services according to your preferences and requirements.
Let’s now go back to the two chat services we merged in the last section. Whereas previously we had a service for both the patient and physician chat, we now have a single service that represents both profiles, so the name PatientChatWebSocket is no longer accurate, and may cause misunderstandings for other developers working on this service in the future. We can decide to select a better name, such as ChatService (Image 7).
In Image 8, we can see another service named JaxRSRecordFacadeBroker (+2). The (+2) part here indicates that we have entry points belonging to multiple classes. You may find this name unnecessarily descriptive, so you can change it simply to RecordBroker.
By renaming services in a more accurate and meaningful way, you can ensure that your engineering team can quickly identify and work with future microservices in a straightforward way.
Best Practice #4: Identify Functionality That Shouldn’t Be a Separate Microservice
What qualities suggest that functionality previously contained in a monolith deserves to be a microservice? Not everything should become a microservice, so when would you want to remove a service as a candidate for separation and extraction?
Well, you may decide that some services don’t actually belong in a separate domain, for example a filter class that simply filters messages. Because this isn’t exclusive to any particular service, you can decide to move it to a common library or another service in the future.
What You Can Do
When removing functionality as a candidate for future extraction as a microservice, you are deciding not to treat this class as an individual entry point for receiving traffic. Let’s look at the AuthenticatingAdministrationController service (Image 9), which is a simple controller class.
In Image 9, we can see that the selected class has low exclusivity by the red color, and also that it is a very small service, containing only one dynamic class, one static class and no resources. You can decide that this should not be a separate service by itself and remove it by dragging and dropping it onto the black sphere in the middle (Image 10).
By relocating this class back to the monolith, we have decided that this particular functionality does not meet the requirements to become an individual microservice.
Implement the Strangler Fig Pattern with vFunction and AWS Refactor Spaces
vFunction is an AWS Partner, where we have integrated with AWS Migration Hub Refactor Spaces to utilize the Strangler Fig Pattern, build microservices and deploy them into AWS environments.
The refactoring process begins with developers using vFunction to generate an automated, AI-based analysis that quantifies the complexity of monolithic legacy apps. The platform uses dynamic analysis and visualization tools to view each app running in real-time and to record its behavior and the code paths it follows.
From there, Refactor Spaces establishes, maintains, and manages the infrastructure needed to support the incremental transformation of a legacy app from a monolith to microservices. It automatically creates a multi-account environment and orchestrates AWS services across accounts to facilitate the refactoring process.
In image 11, we can see the Strangler Fig Pattern in action with an example Order Management System application. Traffic is being split between the existing monolith and the new microservice hosted in the AWS cloud.
Refactor Spaces implements the Strangler Fig Pattern for the target application, creating separate accounts for the original app and the façade. vFunction creates its own account for use in decomposing the monolithic app into microservices. Refactor Spaces allows developers to easily route and manage communications traffic throughout the environment, which is key for implementing the Strangler Fig Pattern with multiple microservices.
Application modernization is a top priority for so many companies. And yet 79% of application modernization projects fail. Why?
To find out, we partnered with Wakefield Research to survey 250 technology professionals—leaders, architects, and developers at a director level or above—who have the responsibility of maintaining at least one monolithic app in a company of at least 5,000 employees.
This research explores what architects want executives to know about application modernization projects, where the two groups are aligned, and where they see things differently. It also covers the secrets of successful projects.
Download the full report to reveal key numbers and insights, such as:
The % of respondents who are planning to or have already started their app modernization projects
The % of architecture leaders who admit having a failed modernization project
The cost and length of an average modernization project
The key differences between executives and architects
Insights on the biggest obstacles to modernization, including cost, risk, complexity, and organizational pushback
Posted on April 15, 2022 by Derick C - Uncategorized
Given the complexity and interdependence of today’s multi-layered application estates, business leaders need to prioritize their modernization efforts before they start pulling on threads that can unravel further complexity.
This Intellyx eBook will explore four key consideration factors for modernizing applications, so we can observe and learn from the successes and mistakes of other organizations. An understanding of these patterns and anti-patterns can better align refactoring efforts with business goals.
Download the Intellyx & vFunction eBook to dive into four key topics:
Why Application Modernization Strategies Fail
Is Application Modernization your Digital Transformation Ball and Chain?
Flip the Script on Lift-and-Shift Modernization, with Refactoring
Posted on February 4, 2022 by xivic - Uncategorized
As the pace of technology innovation increases by the minute, companies of all sizes are racing to become more data-driven and efficient. The recent pandemic has only accelerated this process–industry analyst IDG reports that “Application/legacy system modernization” has risen in importance to become a top priority for CIOs in 2022 . Forward-thinking businesses will continue to innovate and compete for decades to come if they use the right mix of modern solutions, techniques, and strategies, becoming more agile and responsive as a result.
Migrating applications to different JVMs, frameworks, operating systems, and infrastructure is often one of the first opportunities identified as part of an overall application modernization strategy. Application modernization begins with a comprehensive assessment of an organization’s application estate, which includes, among other decisions, which applications should migrate to the cloud and how migration fits into your overall modernization initiatives. Although this process can be challenging, new technology makes the process easier and more reliable.
Gartner specifies application modernization services as those that “address the migration of legacy to new applications or platforms, including integrating new functionality to provide the latest functions to the business. Modernization options include re-platforming, re-hosting, recoding, rearchitecting, re-engineering, interoperability, replacement and retirement, as well as changes to the application architecture to clarify which option should be selected.”
You can measure the success of a company’s application modernization strategy–including its efforts to migrate to the cloud by re-hosting or replatforming–by evaluating how it has changed its products and services to digital environments, along with the acquisition of skills tied to these changes. Companies that have become digitally mature utilize information and communication technologies in a significant part of their activities and have the capability and willingness to modernize their processes, functions, and organization.
Why Do Companies Decide to Modernize Monolithic Applications for the Cloud?
To level set terminology, a monolithic application is defined as “an app that has all or most of its functionality within a single process or container, and it’s componentized in internal layers or libraries.”
It is this type of mature application that often represents core application functionality and is responsible for a significant percentage of product or service revenue. Making small changes on the outside of this application can bring some limited benefits, but unless the primary business system is targeted for modernization, the most significant benefits of the cloud are rarely achieved:
Improving application performance and scalability
Increasing development team velocity, morale, and innovation
Eliminating technical debt: “Technical debt is a concept in programming that reflects the extra development work that arises when code that is easy to implement in the short run is used instead of applying the best overall solution.”
Improving compliance and security
In general, companies want to enhance the user experience, keep employees productive and motivated, and ensure sensitive data is protected. Their applications would benefit from being in the cloud to scale, secure, and comply with these goals.
However, when decision-makers run into limitations for new initiatives and processes due to old and outdated applications, they reach a breaking point: They either stay the same and lose competitiveness, or determine that modernizing business-critical applications and development processes must become a priority.
If the previous sections sound familiar to you, perhaps you want to take the next step in modernizing monolithic applications for the cloud. In this case, Gartner recommends considering the following factors when assessing the value of modernizing legacy applications.
Business fit
Competitors are modernizing their apps and moving them to the cloud or using SaaS for their solutions. This lets them innovate faster, provide a better customer experience, and recruit the best employees. The longer you wait, the more market share they gain.
Business value
Modern applications benefit from modular architectures or microservices, which allow for easy changes with less risk. Customers can benefit from faster value delivery.
Agility
Developers are able to add new features faster with modern applications because the development process is accelerated. Automated building, testing, and releasing builds streamline time-to-market processes.
Cost
In modern applications, operating costs are significantly lower because they typically operate on a pay-as-you-go model. Using this method avoids both wasting resources and paying to keep infrastructure running during downtime. In addition, the price and overhead of infrastructure management decrease.
Complexity
In monolithic systems, adding new features is difficult because of tight coupling and dependencies. This sort of complexity is also responsible for the difficulty in decoupling monolithic services and moving from on-premise servers or data centers to the cloud. You have to weigh these pros and cons.
Risk
Making changes to complex monolithic systems can have unpredictable downstream effects on unrelated parts of the monolith, which carries a significant risk. Businesses should assess the costs, vulnerability, competitiveness impact, and operational consequences before making a decision.
With these concepts, you will be able to evaluate your applications more efficiently and choose the best approach to modernization. This will allow you to make the right decision for your company.
Lift and Shift, Refactor, Replace, or Another Option?
If you’ve heard only about lift and shift, refactor, and replace, know there are other ways to begin your application modernization journey. Here are some ways Gartner explains.
Encapsulation
This approach makes the application’s features accessible as services through APIs by encapsulating or separating their data and functions.
In other words, the process creates a more modern interface or API for the existing application and its components making it easier to access by other, newer cloud-native applications but doing nothing to modernize the system or improve the architecture for the future.
You may benefit from encapsulation in the short term because it allows you to move your application to a modern API-driven interface without spending time rewriting it. While it’s a gradual transformation, it is also a stop-gap approach that continues to accrue technical debt and slow down innovation. Thus, in turn, this method comes with some risks, too. Monolithic applications are complicated because of their complexity and size. Without decoupling the logic into microservices, you cannot take advantage of the full benefits of the cloud.
Lift and Shift Strategies (Migration)
Simply put, the “lift and shift” method can also be described as another way of saying that an app will move to the cloud. It is a common mistake for companies to categorize their legacy application modernizations under this heading, as it genuinely does not modernize anything. The “rehost” and “replatform” categories above fall under the “lift and shift” label.
The first step in making lift and shift really work is to make sure that the application, which previously operated in the on-premises data center, still has access to the same data and documents once it is in the cloud. You can successfully lift and shift workloads from the data center to the cloud if the access to shared folders remains the same.
Suppose a company did not thoroughly examine its apps before making the “lift and shift” decision, but it still adopted this approach. In that case, it will oversimplify modernization’s goals and merely move technical debt to the cloud without achieving any substantial business benefits.
It’s good to know that you don’t have to make the migration strategy decision alone. Companies can modernize their applications with the most efficient migration strategy thanks to technology. Check out the following section to learn how.
Replatform
This migration style means making as few changes as possible to the code for it to run on a new platform, such as the most current operating system. Replatforming does not require you to manipulate the app’s architecture or functionality.
There is no need to undertake a significant development initiative with replatforming, which makes it cheaper. Taking small steps can be beneficial at first, then you can scale up as needed. The approach also allows you to migrate some workloads to the cloud, run tests on a cloud platform, analyze the results, and then move on to other workloads without committing to a lengthy migration process.
You can leverage the cloud effectively using cloud capabilities such as auto-scaling, managed storage and data processing, infrastructure as code, and more.
This method is not without its risks. One of them is the scope of your work can increase the possibility of turning a replatforming project into a much greater refactoring effort. Limit scope and avoid unnecessary changes to reduce this possibility.
Automation is further necessary since you can’t manage cloud workloads manually after replatforming. As a result, it is essential to invest in automation tools to allow for some flexibility when using the application in the cloud.
Rehost (Migration)
Rehosting refers to migrating the application without modifying its code, data, or functionality to another infrastructure, on-premises or in the cloud.
With rehosting, you can often migrate relatively quickly and test in the cloud in case there is anything wrong. There’s a risk of disruption to business services unless your organization understands this and is ready with enough contingency plans. Additionally, rehosting may lead to poor user experiences early on, which could hurt user retention.
Replatform (Migration)
This migration style means making as few changes as possible to the code for it to run on a new platform, such as the most current operating system. Replatforming does not require you to manipulate the app’s architecture or functionality.
There is no need to undertake a significant development initiative with replatforming, which makes it cheaper. Taking small steps can be beneficial at first, then you can scale up as needed. The approach also allows you to migrate some workloads to the cloud, run tests on a cloud platform, analyze the results, and then move on to other workloads without committing to a lengthy migration process.
Refactor (Modernization)
As opposed to migration tactics like rehosting or replatforming, refactoring is the application modernization process of reorganizing and optimizing existing code. It lets you get rid of outdated code, reduce significant technical debt, and improve non-functional attributes such as performance, security, and usability.
This modernization strategy matches cloud infrastructure to actual resource requirements, which results in long-term cost savings. Refactoring provides long-lasting ROI by enabling you to scale when required and reducing resource consumption.
Furthermore, by refactoring, you can also adapt to changing requirements since cloud-native, and microservice architectures make it possible for applications to add new features or modify existing ones right away.
There are a few downsides to consider. First, without automation, this strategy requires a large number of manual resources. It is much more complex than lifting and shifting, so it traditionally has taken much longer for projects to become profitable. You can’t rely on just anyone to refactor because you need a team with advanced coding, automation, and DevOps skills. The code, infrastructure, and configuration are also at high risk of errors. Last, the smallest mistakes in refactoring cause delays, many cost overruns, and service disruptions. Automation can address these issues.
Rearchitect (Modernization)
The design of some outdated applications prevents them from working in the cloud because they are just not compatible. When this occurs, it is prudent to modernize the application in its entirety by rearchitecting it. It takes a lot of coding to move to a new application architecture in order to make the most of the apps’ features.
With this modernization method, you break up applications into smaller, more manageable pieces for subsequent individual adaptations and development. You can transfer each component, or microservice, to the cloud separately.
In addition to requiring significant adjustments, without intelligent automation and analysis tools to support the architect, this effort will take a great deal longer and cost more than other alternatives. Nevertheless, the benefits include more flexibility, scaling, and control over the architecture.
Rewrite (Modernization)
Using this approach is a good idea when you need to upgrade a business application and need to alter some of the previous specifications or functionality while retaining others. This is a good approach for companies that have invested significant amounts of time and money in developing their own applications. A business that rebuilds and innovates, can retain its intellectual property and unique selling propositions, making it a good option for them.
During the rewriting process, you will be able to engage with customers once again and make your customized applications even better. Unfortunately, this approach requires substantial time and expense investment, as well as considerable expertise.
Replace
This solution offers to replace the application with a brand new version of the software or SaaS service that will take into account any further requirements, user requests and perhaps even use a different technology stack.
In replacement, you can compare different apps and get the ones that work best for your business. If you find something that works better, you can switch apps relatively easily. With the replace approach, the app’s developer is responsible for updating, improving, and securing your application with the replace approach. This can also help relieve you of other migration concerns.
On the other hand, replacing old systems can be problematic for employee engagement due to users becoming attached to the old systems since they are accustomed to using them. Managing change and collaborating with your user base is vital, or you might have a hard time while they adapt. Without custom apps, you might lose future ROI, and you’ll have little say on future features or updates.
Partnering Strategically to Make Application Modernization Happen
Both migration and modernization strategies can be complex and diverse, as you may have noticed. Determining which one is the best, implementing it, and preventing risks is not a simple process. However, you can choose a strategic partner to achieve the best results.
vFunction is at the forefront of cloud and application modernization. Its goal is to assist leading companies globally in accelerating their journey toward cloud-native architecture and gaining a competitive edge. With a factory model purpose-built for cloud-native modernization, the solution removes the time, risk, and cost constraints associated with manually updating business applications.
The vFunction AI-driven platform enables software architects to rapidly and incrementally modernize their legacy application portfolios and technology leaders to unlock the power of the cloud, innovate, and scale. The vFunction Platform consists of two products:
vFunction Assessment Hub: vFunction Assessment Hub analyzes the technical debt of a company’s monolithic applications, accurately identifies the source of that debt, and measures its negative impact on innovation. The AI-powered solution measures app complexity based on code modularity and dependency entanglements, measures the risk of changes impacting stability based on the depth and length of the dependency chains, and then aggregates these to assess the overall technical debt level. It then benchmarks debt, risk, and complexity against the organization’s own estate, while identifying aging frameworks that could pose future security and licensing risks. vFunction Assessment Hub integrates seamlessly with the vFunction Modernization Hub which can directly lead to refactoring, re-architecting, and rewriting applications with the full vFunction Modernization Platform.
vFunction Modernization Hub: vFunction Modernization Hub is an AI-driven modernization solution that automatically transforms complex monolithic applications into microservices, restoring engineering velocity, increasing application scalability, and unlocking the value of the cloud. Utilizing both deep domain-driven observability via a passive JVM agent and sophisticated static analysis, vFunction Modernization Hub analyzes architectural flows, classes, usage, memory, and resources to detect and unearth critical business domain functions buried within a monolith. Whether your application is on-premise or you have already lifted and shifted to the cloud, the world’s most innovative organizations are applying vFunction on their complex “megaliths” (large monoliths) to untangle complex, hidden, and dense dependencies for business critical applications that often total over 10 million lines of code and consist of 1000’s of classes.
Through our solutions, software companies can become faster, more productive, and truly digitally transformed. Contact us if you want to see how we can convert your legacy application to a modern, high-performance, scalable, and authentic cloud-native architecture. Request a demo today.
