> The first clue on this might be that the Avro spec includes mappings that list how primitive Avro types are mapped to JSON types.
My understanding was always:
1. that the "primitive Avro types" are Avro's wire types, which are separate from its representable domain types. (Sort of like how RLE-ified data has wire types of "literal string" and "repeat literal N times".)
2. that any data that would not be valid as input to a JSON encoder, is not valid as input to an Avro encoder, because its wire types are defined in terms of their a mapping from a set of domain types that are exactly the set of domain types accepted by JSON encoders (whether they're explicitly noted as being those or not.)
Or, to put that another way: an Avro schema is — besides a validation step that constrains your data into a slightly-more-normalized/cleaned format — mostly a big fat hint for how to most-efficiently pack an (IMHO strictly JSONly-typed) value into a binary encoding. Differences between "long" and "int" on the wire aren't meant to decode to different domain types (at least, by default); they're just meant to restrict the data's allowed values (like a SQL DOMAIN constraint) in ways that allow it to be more predictable, and so to be wire-encoded more optimally.
Let me lay out some evidence for that assertion:
• Avro supports specifying e.g. "bytes" vs. {"array": "byte"} — there's literally no domain-type difference in those! But one is a wire-encoding optimization over the other.
• Avro has a "default" property, and this property—as part of the JSON-typed schema—can only take on JSON-typed values. Do you think this is an implementation constraint, or a design choice?
• Avro's enum type's "symbols" array? Once again, defined by (and therefore limited to) JSON string values.
• Avro doesn't implement an arbitrary-precision integer type, even though its wire-encoding for integers would support one just fine. Why? Seemingly only because JSON doesn't have an arbitrary-precision integer type (because JavaScript doesn't have a native BigNum type); nor does JavaScript/JSON have any obvious type to O(1)-efficiently deserialize a BigNum out into. (Deserializing BigNums to strings wouldn't be O(1).) Every other language offers a clean 1:1 mapping for bignums, but JavaScript doesn't, so JSON didn't, so Avro doesn't.
• And why do you think Avro schemas are stored as embedded explicitly-defined-to-be-JSON documents within the root-level record / .avsc file, anyway? This means that you are required to have a JSON decoder around (either at decode time, or at decoder codegen time) to decode Avro documents. Why would this be, if not because the Avro implementation is (ot at least originally was) expected to decode the Avro document's wire types into the JSON library's already-defined ADTs, relying on e.g. having those "default"-parameter values already loaded in in JSON-value format from the schema's decode-output, ready to be dropped seamlessly into the resulting Avro decode-output?
And the biggest knock-down argument I'm aware of:
• Avro "string" doesn't support "\u0000". Why not? Because as you've said, Avro has a "JSON encoding", which specifies one-to-one mapping for strings; and JSON doesn't support "\u0000" in strings. (Just ask Postgres's jsonb type about that.) Since an Avro string containing "\u0000" wouldn't round-trip losslessly between the JSON and binary wire-encodings, it's not allowed in strings in the binary encoding.