> > It is worth keeping in mind that explicit external schema is another > cost in not just designing but also maintaining the system. As such, > it is most useful for closely-coupled internal system, where one > controls both ends. This may be the case for computing pipelines a > single team owns.
Our experiences have been quite the opposite. When the developer producing data was the same as the developer writing code to consume it, json worked fine since the developer knew what fields to expect. As our company grew, this turned into tribal knowledge and the approach did not scale. That's when having schemas is critical: when one team produces data and many others consume it. The cost is that the producer needs to publish the schema for others to discover. On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Tatu Saloranta <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Russell Jurney > <[email protected]> wrote: > > To be fair, you can test types as you parse JSON. But only a few. > ... > > Difference between external/explicit schema typed formats and > schema-free (optional schema, as in JSON) formats is similar to that > between statically and dynamically typed languages. > Testing and handling differ, as well as trade-offs. > > -+ Tatu +- >
