Comments on InputUnion RFC #817
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Hi, thanks for this extensive and in-depth work. I will try to keep my comments concise (which might make them sound agressive, apologies if that's the case, it's definitely not the intent) This PR touches one of the most challengeable founding philosophical choices of GraphQL: having 2 different type systems for input and output. I understand that the sender -> receiver relation is an unbalanced one: the sender has obligations, the receiver has options. However: - ALL GraphQL users use programming languages (Javascript, Java, C#, Python...) which make no difference between input and output types - I actually don't know any other protocol that does that (is there one?) - having 2 different type systems for input and output solves (does it?) an implementer problem, not a user problem The lack of polymorphism on input is only a side-effect of the aformentioned original choice. In an unreal world, rather than tweak GraphQL to fix that, it would be time for GraphQL2, unifying input and output types (amongst other improvements). That's very unlikely to happen, but saying so helps forming an opinion on the various proposals: - adding yet another polymorphic construct only available on input 'smells' like increasing confusion - it would increase the gap between input and output type systems, rather than reduce it From there, I think proposal graphql#5 @OneOf is the most useful one: - it acts as a constraint on existing type constructs rather than yet another type construct - it expresses the required behavior much better than proposal graphql#7
Hi, thanks for this extensive and in-depth work. I will try to keep my comments concise (which might make them sound agressive, apologies if that's the case, it's definitely not the intent) This PR touches one of the most challengeable founding philosophical choices of GraphQL: having 2 different type systems for input and output. I understand that the sender -> receiver relation is an unbalanced one: the sender has obligations, the receiver has options. However: - ALL GraphQL users use programming languages (Javascript, Java, C#, Python...) which make no difference between input and output types - I actually don't know any other protocol that does that (is there one?) - having 2 different type systems for input and output solves (does it?) an implementer problem, not a user problem The lack of polymorphism on input is only a side-effect of the aformentioned original choice. In an unreal world, rather than tweak GraphQL to fix that, it would be time for GraphQL2, unifying input and output types (amongst other improvements). That's very unlikely to happen, but saying so helps forming an opinion on the various proposals: - adding yet another polymorphic construct only available on input 'smells' like increasing confusion - it would increase the gap between input and output type systems, rather than reduce it From there, I think proposal graphql#5 @OneOf is the most useful one: - it acts as a constraint on existing type constructs rather than yet another type construct - it expresses the required behavior much better than proposal graphql#7
|
|
|
Solution 5 is the solution we’re currently pushing forwards; that was the conclusion of the latest input unions working group (which you can watch on the GraphQL Foundation’s YouTube) 👍 If you’d like this feedback factored into the RFC document to help add more reasoning behind solution 5, it should be done in the existing form; for example adding a goal that “No additional types are introduced” and then evaluating it against the various proposals. |
rmwhite03
approved these changes
Feb 10, 2021
leebyron
added
the
📣 RFC document
leebyron
force-pushed
the
main
branch
4 times, most recently
from
e5d241d
to
6c81ed8
Compare
|
Merging since this is RFC Doc and I'm about to move them |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi, thanks for this extensive and in-depth work.
I will try to keep my comments concise (which might make them sound agressive, apologies if that's the case, it's definitely not the intent)
This PR touches one of the most challengeable founding philosophical choices of GraphQL: having 2 different type systems for input and output.
I understand that the sender -> receiver relation is an unbalanced one: the sender has obligations, the receiver has options.
However:
The lack of polymorphism on input is only a side-effect of the aformentioned original choice.
In an unreal world, rather than tweak GraphQL to fix that, it would be time for GraphQL2, unifying input and output types (amongst other improvements).
That's very unlikely to happen, but saying so helps forming an opinion on the various proposals:
From there, I think proposal #5 @OneOf is the most useful one:
!!! IMPORTANT !!!
Please Read https://github.com/graphql/graphql-spec/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md before creating a Pull Request.