Why does SchemaDefinition mandate { RootOperationTypeDefinition+ }?

[mjy9088]

What if someone wants to define a schema with only directives or a description, without RootOperationTypeDefinitions?

[martinbonnin]

@mjy9088 what would be the use case of doing so? A schema without any operation isn't really useful.

[mjy9088]

I haven't used TypeSystemExtension yet, so I'm not entirely sure if such a case exists, but I was thinking that perhaps the main schema could only provide descriptions and directives, while the extended schema could provide the RootOperationTypeDefinition.

Above all, as I'm creating a parser myself rather than focusing on usage examples, I feel there's some inconsistency in the fact that only SchemaDefinition among TypeSystemDefinitionOrExtension enforces the { ... } block.

[martinbonnin]

only SchemaDefinition among TypeSystemDefinitionOrExtension enforces the { ... } block.

Don't objects and interfaces require a { ... } block as well? They are required to contain fields.

[benjie]

In general we start with the tightest/strictest definitions and then open them up as the need arises. Since there has been no need for this to be opened up, we have not done so.