[stickyricky]

If we reset for a moment. My point is that merging an SPA with an API server with the explicit and sole purpose of defining a type once and using it in two different domains is not a meaningful use of programming time. In my perfect world, an identical definition of the type would be defined in each domain.

You're welcome to disagree but I'm having a hard time following the conversation.

[throw10920]

When did I ever say that you would need to "merge" your SPA with an API server? I didn't, because you don't, because, like I said above...

My point is "there's no more coupling [from using an explicit shared type schema] than what exists in the first place." for which I provided a logical argument in the comment you replied to.

This was in response to your earlier statement "At the expense of coupling which is not a trivial concern."

Do you have any additional arguments for why adding a type schema introduces additional coupling that were not covered above?

[stickyricky]

I use a JSON specification to manage interchange. I repeatedly reference the necessity of data interchange formats (e.g. a well-typed JSON schema). Interchange formats mean applications couple to a specification. Not to a code base. Which I'm sure you're well aware since apparently we've been in complete agreement the entire time.