These are chat archives for bvaughn/forms-js

11th
Mar 2015
Kent C. Dodds
@kentcdodds
Mar 11 2015 16:55
There we go!
Mohsen Azimi
@mohsen1
Mar 11 2015 16:55
Finally!
Kent C. Dodds
@kentcdodds
Mar 11 2015 16:56
Was that working for anyone else?
Mohsen Azimi
@mohsen1
Mar 11 2015 16:56
I haven't seen anybody other than us respond to my message
Kent C. Dodds
@kentcdodds
Mar 11 2015 16:56
Yeah, I think there’s something weird about organization groups...
Mark Chapman
@mchapman
Mar 11 2015 16:59
I just tried it and it worked for me.
Mohsen Azimi
@mohsen1
Mar 11 2015 17:01
I wanted to open a discussion about the schema. Now that we're making a new schema there are many things we can learn from JSON Schema.
  • First question is, are we talking JSON or JavaScript object?
  • If it's JSON, do we want to use JSON References(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-zyp-json-ref-03)
  • JSON Schema's anyOf, allOf and oneOf properties are really powerful. Do we want to have something like that?
  • Do we want to use a hyper schema for validating the schema we're defining? (It makes sense if schema is JSON not POJO)
Brian Vaughn
@bvaughn
Mar 11 2015 17:26
FYI I'm not really going to be able to chat much today since I'll be heading to the airport in about a half hour.
I think a JavaScript object is more well-suited for Forms JS validation and layout schemas though. It's easier (IMO) to work with and can be easily validated with Kent's apiCheck.
Brian Vaughn
@bvaughn
Mar 11 2015 17:31
I'm also going to venture a guess that it's the more well-understood between the two. JavaScript developers all understand how to work with POJOs. Only some JavaScript developers have experience with JSON schema. (I'm not one of them.)
Mark Chapman
@mchapman
Mar 11 2015 17:34
Not really to re-open a can of worms, but you aren't making a fair comparison. I think all JS devs understand POJO and JSON. Some JS Devs understand JSON schema. About 4 JS Devs have a slight grasp on the format of POJO we are talking about using
However, if we are to allow total flexibility in validation then we need to introduce POJOs at some point.
Brian Vaughn
@bvaughn
Mar 11 2015 17:36
Okay. That's fair.
Doesn't change my preference for POJO though.
I have to run now. I'll be checking in later from an airport. :)
No idea if this will send me notifications when I'm away. I prefer Github discussions.
Mark Chapman
@mchapman
Mar 11 2015 17:44
I don't think we need to take a once and for all decision now (or indeed ever). Given that we need to use POJOs internally, and we hope later to introduce some sort of conversion from some sort (or multiple sorts) of JSON format to the POJO format we adopt, should we not concentrate on the POJO format for now?
Mark Chapman
@mchapman
Mar 11 2015 17:49
And I don't love gitter or github. On gitter you can see more (especially if you have a wide screen), but all threads are merged. And on both (and on comment threads on collaborative docs like Drive) if multiple people are commenting simultaneously you can get problems of not understanding which comment is a response to what. I am sure there is a perfect solution (and if not maybe someone should write one?)
Brian Vaughn
@bvaughn
Mar 11 2015 17:50
Yes. POJOs needed for custom async validation. So I'd rather focus on POJO and then make a nice JSON mapper . (Opened a ticket for that already, in fact)
I think a lot of this is temporary pain. Once we reach some consensus and start coding, I don't anticipate as many long-running discussions.
Mohsen Azimi
@mohsen1
Mar 11 2015 18:38
I want to take a vote for either keep discussing here or find a better place.
My vote is for gitter