From the .Net perspective (C#, VB, etc.) and MSSQL, I have noticed that for a set of applications (maintained by the same development team) typically have the same defined configuration for connecting to the database.
<DbConnection Name="SomeConnection" UserId="SomeUser" Key="SomeKey" ConnectionTemplate="server=SomeServer;Initial Catalog=..."/>
For my question, should these applications with pretty much identical configurations have a single consolidated area to retrieve this data instead of the application specific web.config/ConfigurationManager? (consolidated area could be files in a shared folder or some configuration-esque database lookup tables)
One of the practices that feels like there is a benefit for consolidation is Password Manager/Vault, where the User Id and Key are submitted to retrieve the actual password for the service account. During the lifetime of the applications, the Password Manager/Vault could change as upgrades to existing software or "new/better" software are made (my current scenario). This is assuming that the proper channels agree and make the necessary changes for the swap. (swap meaning the company-wide installation and ability request accounts/keys/passwords to be added are complete and available)
For maintenance from the development team standpoint, we are looking to keep things simple to be more flexible as work requests are provided, but a request to swap Password Managers/Vaults can be cumbersome. The difficulty/amount of time needed depends on security team(s) for processing request for intended new items (new service account, access to endpoints, etc.)
Since this item primarily impacts connection strings, the idea of consolidating these configuration items was tossed around. This consolidation would involve the "old" and "new" formats, where some application setting would be updated when the swap is ready to be implemented.
Some development work has been started on the idea, but I am concerned about any gotchas or smells that may not be apparent in the first few passes. I do not know if discussing the specifics on the draft implementation would be helpful for the question, but I can go into those specifics if needed.