If you've used JSON:API and GraphQL, what would you say are the key missing features in JSON:API? Conversely, what did you like better about JSON:API? (feel free to answer one or both questions)
I was talking about a rather narrow thing; apologies for making it seem like a larger critique. This is just a lot of "stuff" that isn't nicely layered; it feels like a kitchen sink. http://json-schema.org/latest/json-schema-validation.html#rfc.section.6 …
-
-
Are we talking about improving the format of the specification, the readability, or are you concerned there are too many features to consider, learn, support, etc?
-
It's less about learning and more that it seems that JSON Schema has a kitchen sink of supported validations (anything anyone thought of), without any (obvious?) way to introduce custom ones. I'd have preferred a small set of built-in ones and a way to express custom ones.
-
A big focus of JSON Schema draft-08 is modularity and extensibilityhttps://github.com/json-schema-org/json-schema-spec/issues/561 …
-
@wycats if you look at JSON Schema as a type system then “lots of validation rules” looks a bit much, but if you look at it as a specification format, then this validation vocabulary doesn’t seem wild. It’s 25 keywords that do really useful stuff. Extensibility would be neat. -
I think a handful of keywords, an extensibility mechanism, and the rest of the builtins hosted on the mechanism is more-or-less what I expected. I think it's doable.
-
You just described the validation vocabulary. I guess you’re suggesting an even smaller validation vocabulary and then punting things off to advance vocabularies, or moving towards user defined vocabularies and they make their own validations? That’s gonna be a pain in the butt.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.