JSON Schema bundling formalised

Post by arethuza » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:08 PM UTC

atombender wrote: post #69

I'll be one of the few positive voices here, I guess. JSON Schema is pretty good. It's a relatively simple, extensible, pragmatic specification that supports validating the kinds of data that JSON can express. XML was killed by complexity, same as lots of technologies that preceded it, such as CORBA and SOAP. Developers don't like complexity. W3C tried to build an enormously complicated ecosystem of tools on top of X…

Post by matja » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:10 PM UTC

Someone wrote: post #62

matja wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with integers (comes up often for large numeric IDs): JSON.stringify(JSON.parse('{"kids":10000000000000001}')) -> '{"kids":10000000000000000}' How do JSON schemas handle "must be an integer", and having to pass a string to get the necessary value?

That’s not an issue with json, but with json libraries. For better or (IMO) for worse {“kids”: 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890} is perfectly legal json.

Post by paulddraper » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:11 PM UTC

ivolimmen wrote: post #70

paulddraper wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean XSD? XSD = JSONSchema WSDL = OpenAPI SOAP = there really isn't a direct analog maybe ""REST"" --- In any case, try creating a SOAP service and WSDL. It's literally so complex that most tutorials have to rely on an IDE to do it. Humans are simply not equal to the task. Yes, the purpose is similar, but only those who have never used them would think they're the same.

Well let's turn the statement around then: can you create a OpenAPI YAML by hand then? At least with XML and XSD you have proper auto complete. I really no need see the need to use a schema for JSON. The only thing it has going for it compared to SOAP/XML is the fact the it faster parsing and that it has no schema.

    {
      "type": "object",
      "properties": {
        "foo": { "type": "string" }
      }
    }

Post by oaiey » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:16 PM UTC

dgb23 wrote: post #68

csmpltn wrote: post #2

We've come full circle back to XML SOAP. We should consider restricting the registration of .org domains to actual non-profit organizations, and restricting the use of words like "schema" and "standard" to things that have been fully certified as such by internationally accredited engineering bodies. This doesn't add anything on-top of the tools we've had 40 years ago. We're stuck with this everywhere now, all thanks…

JSON syntax is more familiar for people who have not been exposed to XML for long. Parsing and walking a JSON structure is much easier and less ambiguous. It's often very clear how to represent/deserialize/serialize JSON (as-is). The benefits of using schema are clear, you can add validation and semantics to parse (JSON) into a richer and more consistent data structure. JSON-schema is in large parts a well designed a…

Post by paulddraper » Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 12:17 PM UTC

m_st wrote: post #66

k__ wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to use SOAP once... for one API endpoint. I'd say it was the worst dev experience of my whole career, and I fought with objective-c and app stores.

Using SOAP APIs daily since over 15 years with .NET Framework development. Simple and easy to write and then easy to consume through Visual Studio generated code. Tried some ObjC development early on the iPhone. Gave up quickly. I agree that SOAP looks like a mess. But given the right tools, it honestly just works. Never had a single issue with these APIs apart being stuck in .NET Framework land.