Re: [dss-x] DSS-JSON binding

["Mr. Stefan Hagen" <stefan@hagen.link>]

Hi Andreas and all the other "us":

I for one currently not have to fight with implementations in that area, feel bad about this deep modeling into JSON (generally in JSON we try mostly avoid deep nested structures for a good reason=.

Two impressions / wild ideas / far off(?):

1. the very mechanical alternating mix of thing, property key tuples in the path down to value ... maybe that is JAXB ... but I would think we better model along concepts like data vs. resource fork if we have to go so deep? Where you than have a clear chain of properties like so:
DSSSchema["properties"]["OptionalInputs"]["KeySelector"]["KeyInfo"]["KeyInfo"]["spkidata"]["items"]

and the "data" in:
DSSSchema["values"]["OptionalInputs"]["KeySelector"]["KeyInfo"]["KeyInfo"]["spkidata"]["items"]

along these lines.

2. we should massively flatten the schema, period.

All the best maybe far off, but well-meant ;-)
Stefan.

On 28/11/16 14:07, Andreas Kuehne wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
> 
> ah, you got eagle eyes! Yes, I guess this is a (known) bug in the  JAXB
> implementation. You have to annotate each and every element to support
> the leading capital letter we used in the XML schema to be supported in
> JAXB. According to the Java beans spec it defaults to leading lowercase
> letters. But strangely a few object have _both_ mappings, upper- and
> lower-case!
> 
> What concerns me more about the current schema is that it simply a model
> from a plain request. There are no objects and references in it. That's
> not very handy! I'll have to dig into JAXB as the object model knows
> about the objects and their annotations!
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Andreas
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> thanks a lot for providing initial draft and first comments!
>>
>> I skimmed through this skeleton and just a nit:
>>
>> What is the difference of below two entries in:
>>
>> DSSSchema["properties"]["OptionalInputs"]["properties"]["KeySelector"]["properties"]["KeyInfo"]["properties"]["KeyInfo"]["properties"]["spkidata"]["items"]["properties"]
>>
>> """
>>                                  "spkisexp":{
>>                                     "type":"array",
>>                                     "items":{
>>                                        "type":"array",
>>                                        "items":{
>>                                           "type":"string"
>>                                        }
>>                                     }
>>                                  },
>>                                  "SPKISexp":{
>>                                     "type":"array",
>>                                     "items":{
>>                                        "type":"array",
>>                                        "items":{
>>                                           "type":"string"
>>                                        }
>>                                     }
>>                                  }
>> """
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>> Stefan.
>> On 28/11/16 10:39, Juan Carlos Cruellas wrote:
>>> Dear Andreas,
>>>
>>> Thank you very much. I have not much experience on JSON so far. What I
>>> see is that it could be useful to include comments (I have seen that
>>> there are JSON schema components for adding comments) to make it more
>>> understable and make it clear where the definitions of the different
>>> types start and end.
>>>
>>> As for the contents itself, would say that when the DSS specified the
>>> XML schema it thought about the relevant elements required for meeting a
>>> number of good requirements for detailing some of the componentes of the
>>> signatures, and it seems to be appropiate to keep them in JSON...
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Juan Carlos.
>>> El 28/11/16 a las 10:04, Andreas Kuehne escribió:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> see my draft on a JSON binding attached.
>>>>
>>>> A JSON schema created by the JAXB framework is attached, but the
>>>> expressiveness and readability leaves room for improvements. Does
>>>> anyone has experience in deriving a readable JSON schema from a given
>>>> JSON sample or a XML schema?
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, did the dust settle for an agreed JSON schema format?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
> 
>