Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

make format open/extensible by using a registry? #10

Open
dret opened this issue Jan 18, 2018 · 6 comments
Open

make format open/extensible by using a registry? #10

dret opened this issue Jan 18, 2018 · 6 comments

Comments

@dret
Copy link
Contributor

dret commented Jan 18, 2018

it seems like there is a good set of initial values, but if that set may evolve over time to cover additional concepts. one popular model to cover this is to have a registry of values, with those defined in the original specification as the initial registry contents (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-registries-01). it all depends on how much this format is expected to evolve, and how easy that evolution should be. i am just pointing this out as an alternative design option for the format. i'd be more than happy to help with the specifics of establishing a registry.

@inadarei
Copy link
Owner

inadarei commented Jan 20, 2018

Erik, this makes a lot of sense. I think in the case of health checks we need to err on the side of simplicity rather than flexibility. So, as opposed to a, say, generic media type that should cover many use-cases health check media type may want to be much more restrictive for the sake of interoperability.

That said, we are already mentioning several vocabularies that have initially defined values and may need to be extended in the future.

I guess what I am saying: extensions should be limited to current shape of JSON and whatever flexibility "details" provide, no more. However, in the details we have:

  1. type
  2. metricName
  3. merticUnit

that all could benefit from a registry for values: http://rawgit.com/inadarei/rfc-healthcheck/reusable-details/index.html

That is where I think registry would provide a lot of value here.

Do you agree?

@inadarei
Copy link
Owner

@dret do you think you can provide an example wording of how this can be featured in the healthcheck RFC?

@dret
Copy link
Contributor Author

dret commented Jan 22, 2018 via email

@dret
Copy link
Contributor Author

dret commented Jan 23, 2018 via email

@dret
Copy link
Contributor Author

dret commented Feb 26, 2018

i am not saying this is a great way to do it (actually, to me it is strange that they now have to keep updating the document just to add more stat details), but for reference, here is how the WebRTC statistics API handles their data model: https://www.w3.org/TR/2018/WD-webrtc-stats-20180226/

@dret
Copy link
Contributor Author

dret commented May 14, 2018

just in case you're interested in more variations of how this could be done (all of them misguided in my mind and in need of a proper registry approach), i am maintaining a list of @w3c specs that in all likelihood should use registries, but don't: https://github.com/dret/RegMan/blob/master/W3C.md

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants