Re: [Json] JSON Schema Language: int53

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 22, 2019, at 23:54, Ulysse Carion <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> If you omit int53, then your code generation will never create a long despite this being a widely available & useful type.
> 
> The issue, in my view, is that int64/uint64 is the widely-available
> and useful type. Not int53. To support int53 would require that code
> generators implement this psuedo-type at runtime.

I’m not quite sure what “implementing a pseudo-type” means, but is that hard?

> Consider that gRPC, which has a canonical representation in JSON and
> which also has int64/uint64, unconditionally renders these types as
> strings. I feel that this approach is more reasonable, as it removes
> the footgun of a datatype that most users will assume is equivalent to
> the familiar int64, but is not.

Now you are in the prescriptive area — you no longer describe JSON formats, but you impose your own rules on what these data formats can be.  Not so good. 

Grüße, Carsten