Olivier Poitrey
Olivier Poitrey
Either way works for me. My preference would go for @smyrman's version as it is more expressive.
The thing is that sub-resource etags aren't current's one and an etag is associated with a specific path+query-string, so it should not be used to edit another resource.
Oh yeah ok, got it. Yes absolutely, we should create a ticket for that.
Good question. It was add by @yanfali In #24, he can certainly answer.
Yes I think should remove `Schema` at `Field` level. It is indeed a breaking change but the project is still not in a stable state so I think it's ok....
Sure we can tag.
Are you going to submit a PR for this one?
I'm all for introducing breaking changes now that simplify the API rather than later.
Interesting idea. Then instead of `Validator` shouldn't we rename this field `Type`? The root as Object might be enforced in `resource`. This restriction does not necessarily apply to all use-cases...
Why not doing this in a branch?