[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [odata] JSON CSDL: Representing property facets
Hi Ralf, et.al., It's been bothering me for a bit, and I don't think I can express very well what exactly it is, but I more and more am getting the feeling, especially when I see things like you are proposing, that we are creating something pretty ugly just because we are trying to adhere to something that is not likely the best natural fit for what we are trying to convey, which, after all, is the schema of our service. Now don't get me wrong, I do see value in having a JSON schema, but for those cases were we'd want to validate our payloads, for which we need less then what we are trying to put in currently. As you say, there are clients that are not interested in validating payloads, and I wonder, aren't we making it to hard on them because we are trying to make the JSON CSDL a JSON Schema too? So here is a crazy idea, why wouldn't we have a nice clean JSON CSDL and, separately, allow services to provide a JSON Schema as well put purely for validation, meaning that it wouldn't have to convey any of the OData specifics? Any thoughts anybody? Tell me if you think I'm nuts too, wouldn't be the first time, I can take it;-). Happy holidays, -H Hubert Heijkers STSM, Chief Architect TM1 Server Business Analytics Phone: +31-20-513-9456 Mobile: +31-621-394123 E-mail: hubert.heijkers@nl.ibm.com (Embedded image moved to file: pic10387.gif) (Embedded image moved to file: pic53554.gif)Facebook Button (Embedded image moved to file: pic10481.gif)LinkedIn Button OData Button OASIS Button (Embedded image moved to file: pic46286.jpg) (Embedded image moved to file: pic56306.jpg) From: "Handl, Ralf" <ralf.handl@sap.com> To: "odata@lists.oasis-open.org" <odata@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: 11/28/2014 11:29 AM Subject: [odata] JSON CSDL: Representing property facets Sent by: <odata@lists.oasis-open.org> I’ve received feedback that the current translation of primitive type facets into JSON Schema makes the JSON CSDL hard to understand for clients that are not interested in validating payloads but just want to get the OData metadata. For example a simple <Property Type="Edm.Decimal" Name="Price" Precision="15" Scale="3" /> Becomes (as Nullable="true" is the default): "anyOf":[{"type":"number", "multipleOf":0.001, "minimum":-999999999999.999, "maximum":999999999999.999}, {"type":"null"}] One way to make this more digestible would be to redundantly add the OData facets to the JSON Schema representation: "anyOf":[{"type":"number", "multipleOf":0.001, "minimum":-999999999999.999, "maximum":999999999999.999}, {"type":"null"}], "precision":15, "scale":3 And redundantly add "nullable":false so clients don’t have to check for the anyOf" or "type":["number","null"] constructs. What do you think? Thanks in advance! --Ralf In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable. - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Attachment:
pic10387.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic53554.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic10481.gif
Description: GIF image
Attachment:
pic46286.jpg
Description: JPEG image
Attachment:
pic56306.jpg
Description: JPEG image
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]