clevengermatt

6 ms·

1.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Thanks for the clarification. That's a valid implementation strategy for client consumers that want a gRPC feel. The spec doesn't require any particular client pattern (what's on the site is guidance, not normative), so an OB
2.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
You're right that what OBI does is structural typing or just interfaces, not duck typing. Transforms and bindings do use the adapter pattern. The critique lands and I can admit it. The duck typing framing was rhetorically appealing but
3.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Pushing back on the terminology point. Duck typing is defined by how compatibility is determined, not by the absence of declaration. In Swift and Haskell, declaration is what makes a type conform. In Go, structure does, whether you add an o
4.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Fair correction. Wire-level copies don't even fully match, and upstream changes can invalidate whatever match exists. That's the weakness of wire-level duck typing. Contract-level compatibility doesn't fully solve the upstrea
5.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Claude writes a lot these days. Sometimes, if it works, I don't change it. Good sense of smell on you.
6.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Fair questions. OBI needs its schema format to be universally parseable, deterministic to compare, and rich enough to describe the portable subset of any binding format's type system. JSON Schema meets those requirements without tying
7.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
No, and that's the point. You can generate an OBI from AWS's or GCP's existing OpenAPI specs today with the ob CLI. An OBI is a unified primitive that tools can build on. You can generate OBIs ad hoc for your own consumption
8.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
On the web being the duck typing equivalent. That's ad-hoc duck typing at the wire format level. S3-compatible APIs exist because companies reverse-engineered S3's surface and matched it. You have to replicate the paths, headers,
9.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
The spec isn't hiding JSON Schema. There's a section on it with the dialect URI and the subset of keywords OBI uses: https://openbindings.com/spec#json-schema-dialect That said, if it feels buried, I'll look
10.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
JSON Schema is already the schema format inside OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, and MCP. Using it means OBI can reference those specs directly without translation. Any other choice would have made interop harder, not easier. The programming language ana
11.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
It's made it more tolerable and less visible, but not less real. An LLM can read docs and generate API calls, but it's guessing at structure that could be declared, parsing docs that could be machine-readable, and inferring equiva
12.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Thanks! Happy to answer any questions if you're interested. The ob demo is the fastest way to see it end to end. Starts a service on six protocols and lets you call it from the CLI.
13.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Hi HN. OpenBindings is an open spec for describing what a service does once and binding it to any protocol. You define operations with input/output schemas, then point at your existing OpenAPI doc, proto file, MCP server, or whatever e
14.
One interface, every protocol(openbindings.com)
57 points by clevengermatt 5mo ago|26 comments
15.
by clevengermatt 5mo ago
Hi HN. OpenBindings is an open spec for describing what a service does once and binding it to any protocol. You define operations with input/output schemas, then point at your existing OpenAPI doc, proto file, MCP server, or whatever e
16.
Show HN: OpenBindings – One Contract for REST, gRPC, MCP, GraphQL and Beyond(openbindings.com)
1 points by clevengermatt 5mo ago|1 comments