>>I think this only solves the problem for the API owner, not the consumer, right?
The only problem this solves is their need to sell their product.
This so-called "schema-driven development" approach was already tried in the past and failed miserably. Call it SOAP or OData, the world already gave that a try, saw all the mess and operational and productivity problems it creates, and in spite of the gold mine it represented for tooling vendors and consulting firms, it was a collosal mess.
It's very weird how their selling pitch is based on veiled insults on hoe "the industry is still twenty years behind", but they failed to do their homework to learn the absolute mess that their so-called "schema-driven development" approach left behind.
It's as if they are totally oblivious to why the whole world shifted to "free-form" APIs, which worked far better than the SOAP mess, and their are hell bent on betting on a rehash of the bad old days.
SOAP failed because it was a bad design (overcomplicated, verbose, XML-based), not because it used schemas. I've never heard anyone who uses Protobuf say it reminds them of SOAP.
The only problem this solves is their need to sell their product.
This so-called "schema-driven development" approach was already tried in the past and failed miserably. Call it SOAP or OData, the world already gave that a try, saw all the mess and operational and productivity problems it creates, and in spite of the gold mine it represented for tooling vendors and consulting firms, it was a collosal mess.
It's very weird how their selling pitch is based on veiled insults on hoe "the industry is still twenty years behind", but they failed to do their homework to learn the absolute mess that their so-called "schema-driven development" approach left behind.
It's as if they are totally oblivious to why the whole world shifted to "free-form" APIs, which worked far better than the SOAP mess, and their are hell bent on betting on a rehash of the bad old days.