4 ms·

Reminds me of XSD - the XML schema definition language that itself is XML. Any takeaways (good/bad/ugly) from that experience that are applicable here?

brightball 9y ago
My first thought on seeing the headline was "continuing to reinvent the XML ecosystem...in JSON"
- HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
  Do you consider that a negative? I personally think it's great. The faster the ecosystem is reinvented the sooner we can stop wasting our lives reading it.
  - brightball 9y ago
    It just strikes me as a circular development pattern.
    - bbarn 9y ago
      It's not circular, it's what maturation looks like. Yeah, Json's great - lots of people are using it for lots of things. You could argue it's lack of being schema-bound is a great advantage, and you'd be right, and wrong, depending on your application. This just serves to provide a way to say "yes, we can have strongly typed schemas as well as our nice succinct format" to those who need it.
    - bonesss 9y ago
      XSD is only part of the value-offering... XSD + XSLT is the value provider for format heavy, robust, declarative, document transformations. JSON-schema solves many of the validation issues of JSON in the absence of an XSD-for-JSON solution, to allow message processing and other validation assertions. From that perspective it's 'duplicated effort', but only to the extent that JSON messaging applications are maturing to the point they need the kinds of guarantees that were so clear during the development of XML/SGML. It's a whole different language supporting a range of JSON-powered clients that don't necessarily require transformation support or other guarantees. This is about JSONs ecosystem maturing to the baseline, not about reinventing the wheel :)
shady-lady 9y ago
XSD gets thumbs up from me. Generate useful docs. Easy to read to get a handle on data structure. Also can be used as runtime contracts. somewhat similar but v. limited compared to Racket Contracts and Clojure spec. Not to mention super tooling for interacting with schema (like XMLSpy) In conclusion, having schemas for data structures(especially at boundaries) is absolutely necessary to maintain control & visibility over data.
- bonesss 9y ago
  Find a few applications where XSLTs are used for mission critical stuff... XSDs are a Good Thing (even if working in JSON is nicer than XML). Data schemas are the first step in powering transformations, which is where most of the Enterprise is bound up.

brightball 9y ago

My first thought on seeing the headline was "continuing to reinvent the XML ecosystem...in JSON"

HumanDrivenDev 9y ago
Do you consider that a negative? I personally think it's great. The faster the ecosystem is reinvented the sooner we can stop wasting our lives reading it.
- brightball 9y ago
  It just strikes me as a circular development pattern.
  - bbarn 9y ago
    It's not circular, it's what maturation looks like. Yeah, Json's great - lots of people are using it for lots of things. You could argue it's lack of being schema-bound is a great advantage, and you'd be right, and wrong, depending on your application. This just serves to provide a way to say "yes, we can have strongly typed schemas as well as our nice succinct format" to those who need it.
  - bonesss 9y ago
    XSD is only part of the value-offering... XSD + XSLT is the value provider for format heavy, robust, declarative, document transformations. JSON-schema solves many of the validation issues of JSON in the absence of an XSD-for-JSON solution, to allow message processing and other validation assertions. From that perspective it's 'duplicated effort', but only to the extent that JSON messaging applications are maturing to the point they need the kinds of guarantees that were so clear during the development of XML/SGML. It's a whole different language supporting a range of JSON-powered clients that don't necessarily require transformation support or other guarantees. This is about JSONs ecosystem maturing to the baseline, not about reinventing the wheel :)

shady-lady 9y ago

XSD gets thumbs up from me. Generate useful docs. Easy to read to get a handle on data structure. Also can be used as runtime contracts. somewhat similar but v. limited compared to Racket Contracts and Clojure spec. Not to mention super tooling for interacting with schema (like XMLSpy) In conclusion, having schemas for data structures(especially at boundaries) is absolutely necessary to maintain control & visibility over data.

bonesss 9y ago
Find a few applications where XSLTs are used for mission critical stuff... XSDs are a Good Thing (even if working in JSON is nicer than XML). Data schemas are the first step in powering transformations, which is where most of the Enterprise is bound up.