On Fri, 13 Dec 2019 at 15:02, Vance Duncan <dunca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My immediate thought is observe the YAGNI principle and only create it if
> and when you need it. Otherwise, you run the risk of requiring
> non-interchangeable re-identification if you need required, non-default,
> fields when the need materializes.
>
Could you expand a little on that latter point, please? I'm not sure I
understand what you're saying.
A concrete example might help.
cheers,
rog.
>
>
> On December 13, 2019, at 9:25 AM, roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> The specification doesn't seem to make it entirely clear whether it's
> allowable for a record to contain no fields (a zero-length array for the
> fields member). I've found at least one implementation that complains about
> a record with an empty fields array, and I'm wondering if this is a bug.
>
> A record containing no fields is actually quite useful as it can act as a
> placeholder for a record with any number of extra fields in future
> evolutions of a schema.
>
> What do you think?
>
> cheers,
> rog.
>
