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 else. The spec doesn't replace any of them. They're inputs.
The short version of why: programming languages have had interfaces and duck typing forever. You code to a shape, not an implementation. The web never got a successful equivalent at the network boundary. OpenBindings is an attempt at that.
Fastest way to try it:
brew install openbindings/tap/ob
ob demo
That starts a coffee shop service on six protocols. `ob op exec localhost:8080 getMenu` calls it. The CLI discovers the OBI (OpenBindings Interface) at /.well-known/openbindings and handles the rest.
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.
> Stripe publishes an OBI, other payment providers declare a stripe.payments role, or a community defines a neutral payment-processor interface. No central registry, no governance bottleneck.
Except for the central registry of "stripe" and "payment-processor"?
The web IS the duck typing equivalent at the network boundary! That’s why plenty of alternative service providers can and do implement eg object storage APIs that work with aws s3 client libraries, or LLM APIs that work with Claude Code. The reasons these use cases are standardized (while others remain fragmented) are economic, not technical (lock-in isn’t as profitable for these alt services as raw adoption)—and so a purely technical solution like this is unlikely to address the crux of the problem.
Even purely on the technical level, this seemingly hasn't internalized the lessons of https://xkcd.com/927/
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, and response shapes closely enough that the client libraries can't tell the difference, or they break. There's no spec that declares "I satisfy the S3 interface" and no way for a tool to verify compatibility without running requests.
OBI operates at the contract level instead. Two services with different wire formats can satisfy the same interface as long as their operation shapes match. The binding executors handle the wire differences. That's the duck typing analogy. Match the shape, not the implementation.
You're right that the drivers are partly economic. But technical standards and economics aren't isolated from each other. Terraform, Kubernetes, and OpenAPI itself are technical solutions that enabled economic behavior that wasn't viable before them. Lowering the cost of interop changes what's economically rational to pursue.
On the xkcd, the post addresses this. OBI structurally can't replace OpenAPI, gRPC, or MCP. An OBI without sources and bindings pointing to them is an unbound contract, not an actionable interface. The dependency runs one way. Those specs are inputs, not competitors.
None of the non-AWS copies of S3 implement exactly the S3 protocol. And even if they did, the next update -- coming at any arbitrary time -- would invalidate the full compatibility.
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 upstream changes problem (nothing does), but when you regenerate the OBI from an updated source spec, a compatibility check tells you structurally what changed. Wire-level clones find out by breaking.
The flip side is worth noting too. If you own the API and want to preserve contract compatibility, OBI lets you change your implementation (paths, payload shapes, even protocols) behind the same contract. Transforms bridge shape differences. Binding swaps change protocols. Consumers targeting the interface don't need to care.
Ad-hoc duck typing—“if it looks like a duck[…]”—is the only kind that exists! The point of the term “duck typing” is that it doesn’t require explicit declaration of the contract by implementers, it’s not synonymous with polymorphism or with interfaces in general. Haskell type classes are not duck typed, nor are Swift protocols; Go interfaces are.
OBI is a boilerplate generator for the adapter pattern for service communication; its contracts are just another set of their own paths, payload shapes, and protocols. The distinction between “protocol” and “contract” in this context is nonsense.
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 optional assertion or not. OBI works the same way. Shapes determine compatibility. Roles and satisfies are optional declarations for explicitness, not a different mechanism.
Duck typing also requires being able to see a duck. Go has methods you can introspect. Raw REST doesn't. OpenAPI and gRPC reflection give you a structural surface, and OBI unifies those into one comparable form above the transport. What you're calling ad-hoc duck typing at the network boundary is humans reading docs and guessing whether the shapes match. That's a weaker version of the same idea, without the mechanical verification that makes duck typing useful. On "just another set of paths and protocols," OBI operation keys are transport-neutral. `tasks.create` has no route baked in. Bindings say how to reach it: REST at POST /tasks, gRPC at TaskService.Create, MCP as a tool. Same operation, multiple bindings, one identifier.
You’re still not getting it. Duck typing comes from the phrase “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck”. The Wikipedia page contrasts it with nominative typing that requires a declaration, and calls out that duck typing does not need the adapter pattern. What you are calling duck typing is just “interfaces”.
Also “tasks.create” is morally a route. Eg grpc has web transports and autogenerated CLIs too; even without those, there’s no particular reason why the OBI “client layer” couldn’t just be, say, gRPC under the hood, with the OBI specs just being used to codegen adapters from the source protocol to gRPC. It would then immediately have a much more widely understood and supported client layer, with better performance, while remaining as simple to implement as the adapters to this new custom OBI runtime protocol.
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 imprecise.
On the gRPC-as-client-layer point, I want to make sure I understand. You're suggesting that between the OBI client SDK and the source service, there should be a gRPC layer, with generated gRPC adapters fronting each source? Or something else?
Worth noting either way: the spec doesn't dictate implementation. It defines operation contracts, binding sources, and the executor role. How an executor actually reaches a service is left open, so gRPC-based routing is a valid strategy within the spec regardless.
Thanks for sticking with this. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. I really do appreciate it.
My gRPC point is that it already gives you a language for describing interfaces and support for generating client types from it, and already abstracts the connection management[1]. If OBI just generated a gRPC ClientConn implementation to map the Invoke calls to eg REST paths, it’d inherit the large existing gRPC client ecosystem. That ClientConn interface can already technically capture what OBI calls binding executors. People don’t do this though because it’s not worth it.
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 analogy is about structural compatibility between contracts, not about the wire format the contract is written in.
Well he didn't choose JSON, he chose JSON Schema and since the documentation is trying to hide the existence of JSON Schema and the potential limitations of it when used in combination with e.g. gRPC, when the schema is 99% of the project it's hard to trust the project.
That said, if it feels buried, I'll look at surfacing it more clearly.
You're right about the gRPC fidelity issues though. int64 precision, oneof vs oneOf semantics, enum value mapping, and well-known types all need careful handling when binding to Proto. The tradeoff is that JSON Schema is already the schema format inside OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, and MCP, so OBI can reference their schemas directly without translation. Proto would have given better fidelity for gRPC but required schema translation for every other binding. Picking JSON Schema prioritizes cross-binding reach over depth in any one protocol.
The fidelity limitations deserve clearer documentation. Adding that to the list. Thanks for pushing on this.
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 the spec to any one ecosystem. Proto-level fidelity would center gRPC. A custom IDL would fragment tooling. JSON Schema is the neutral ground.
The limitations are real, especially with proto. For example, our own proto interface creator implementation maps 32-bit integers to JSON Schema `integer` and 64-bit integers to `string` to avoid JSON precision loss beyond 2^53, following Proto3's canonical JSON mapping. Proto enums are int-valued with names; JSON Schema enums are typically strings. Proto's oneof differs semantically from JSON Schema's oneOf. Maps with non-string keys can't be expressed directly.
These affect cross-service structural comparison, not execution. Executors handle source types natively on the wire, so int64 stays int64 when you actually make a call. Transforms bridge shape differences between operation schemas and binding sources at runtime. The comparison layer works at a coarser grain in v0.1 because that's what makes it deterministic and universally implementable. Future profile versions can tighten comparison precision as the ecosystem converges on the tradeoffs worth making.
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 equivalence that could be verified.
An OBI gives an AI agent typed operations and bindings it can use on the first try. No doc parsing, no guessing at endpoints. And AI can generate OBIs from existing specs or use the ob cli to do it for them.
AI and structured contracts aren't competing concepts. Good interface design matters as much for AI as it does for us. Maybe more.
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 without the vendor knowing or caring. Vendor buy-in makes the ecosystem stronger, but it's not required to get value.
The longer game is vendor-published OBIs and shared interface roles (e.g. a neutral object-storage interface that S3 and GCS both satisfy), but one OBI, generated from specs that already exist, is still useful on day one.
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 else. The spec doesn't replace any of them. They're inputs.
The short version of why: programming languages have had interfaces and duck typing forever. You code to a shape, not an implementation. The web never got a successful equivalent at the network boundary. OpenBindings is an attempt at that.
What's here today: - The spec (v0.1.0): https://openbindings.com/spec - ob CLI: https://github.com/openbindings/ob - Go SDK: https://github.com/openbindings/openbindings-go - TypeScript SDK: https://github.com/openbindings/openbindings-ts - Binding executors for different protocols
Fastest way to try it: brew install openbindings/tap/ob ob demo
That starts a coffee shop service on six protocols. `ob op exec localhost:8080 getMenu` calls it. The CLI discovers the OBI (OpenBindings Interface) at /.well-known/openbindings and handles the rest.
Would love feedback on the spec design.
Huh. This sounds really interesting. Will definitely give it a look later this evening. At first blush, this sounds like something I could use.
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.
> The spec doesn't replace any of them. They're inputs.
Claude wrote this
Claude writes a lot these days. Sometimes, if it works, I don't change it. Good sense of smell on you.
> Stripe publishes an OBI, other payment providers declare a stripe.payments role, or a community defines a neutral payment-processor interface. No central registry, no governance bottleneck.
Except for the central registry of "stripe" and "payment-processor"?
[dead]
The web IS the duck typing equivalent at the network boundary! That’s why plenty of alternative service providers can and do implement eg object storage APIs that work with aws s3 client libraries, or LLM APIs that work with Claude Code. The reasons these use cases are standardized (while others remain fragmented) are economic, not technical (lock-in isn’t as profitable for these alt services as raw adoption)—and so a purely technical solution like this is unlikely to address the crux of the problem.
Even purely on the technical level, this seemingly hasn't internalized the lessons of https://xkcd.com/927/
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, and response shapes closely enough that the client libraries can't tell the difference, or they break. There's no spec that declares "I satisfy the S3 interface" and no way for a tool to verify compatibility without running requests.
OBI operates at the contract level instead. Two services with different wire formats can satisfy the same interface as long as their operation shapes match. The binding executors handle the wire differences. That's the duck typing analogy. Match the shape, not the implementation.
You're right that the drivers are partly economic. But technical standards and economics aren't isolated from each other. Terraform, Kubernetes, and OpenAPI itself are technical solutions that enabled economic behavior that wasn't viable before them. Lowering the cost of interop changes what's economically rational to pursue.
On the xkcd, the post addresses this. OBI structurally can't replace OpenAPI, gRPC, or MCP. An OBI without sources and bindings pointing to them is an unbound contract, not an actionable interface. The dependency runs one way. Those specs are inputs, not competitors.
None of the non-AWS copies of S3 implement exactly the S3 protocol. And even if they did, the next update -- coming at any arbitrary time -- would invalidate the full compatibility.
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 upstream changes problem (nothing does), but when you regenerate the OBI from an updated source spec, a compatibility check tells you structurally what changed. Wire-level clones find out by breaking.
The flip side is worth noting too. If you own the API and want to preserve contract compatibility, OBI lets you change your implementation (paths, payload shapes, even protocols) behind the same contract. Transforms bridge shape differences. Binding swaps change protocols. Consumers targeting the interface don't need to care.
Ad-hoc duck typing—“if it looks like a duck[…]”—is the only kind that exists! The point of the term “duck typing” is that it doesn’t require explicit declaration of the contract by implementers, it’s not synonymous with polymorphism or with interfaces in general. Haskell type classes are not duck typed, nor are Swift protocols; Go interfaces are.
OBI is a boilerplate generator for the adapter pattern for service communication; its contracts are just another set of their own paths, payload shapes, and protocols. The distinction between “protocol” and “contract” in this context is nonsense.
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 optional assertion or not. OBI works the same way. Shapes determine compatibility. Roles and satisfies are optional declarations for explicitness, not a different mechanism.
Duck typing also requires being able to see a duck. Go has methods you can introspect. Raw REST doesn't. OpenAPI and gRPC reflection give you a structural surface, and OBI unifies those into one comparable form above the transport. What you're calling ad-hoc duck typing at the network boundary is humans reading docs and guessing whether the shapes match. That's a weaker version of the same idea, without the mechanical verification that makes duck typing useful. On "just another set of paths and protocols," OBI operation keys are transport-neutral. `tasks.create` has no route baked in. Bindings say how to reach it: REST at POST /tasks, gRPC at TaskService.Create, MCP as a tool. Same operation, multiple bindings, one identifier.
Thanks for the sharpening!
You’re still not getting it. Duck typing comes from the phrase “if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck”. The Wikipedia page contrasts it with nominative typing that requires a declaration, and calls out that duck typing does not need the adapter pattern. What you are calling duck typing is just “interfaces”.
Also “tasks.create” is morally a route. Eg grpc has web transports and autogenerated CLIs too; even without those, there’s no particular reason why the OBI “client layer” couldn’t just be, say, gRPC under the hood, with the OBI specs just being used to codegen adapters from the source protocol to gRPC. It would then immediately have a much more widely understood and supported client layer, with better performance, while remaining as simple to implement as the adapters to this new custom OBI runtime protocol.
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 imprecise.
On the gRPC-as-client-layer point, I want to make sure I understand. You're suggesting that between the OBI client SDK and the source service, there should be a gRPC layer, with generated gRPC adapters fronting each source? Or something else?
Worth noting either way: the spec doesn't dictate implementation. It defines operation contracts, binding sources, and the executor role. How an executor actually reaches a service is left open, so gRPC-based routing is a valid strategy within the spec regardless.
Thanks for sticking with this. This is exactly the kind of discussion I was hoping for. I really do appreciate it.
My gRPC point is that it already gives you a language for describing interfaces and support for generating client types from it, and already abstracts the connection management[1]. If OBI just generated a gRPC ClientConn implementation to map the Invoke calls to eg REST paths, it’d inherit the large existing gRPC client ecosystem. That ClientConn interface can already technically capture what OBI calls binding executors. People don’t do this though because it’s not worth it.
[1]: https://github.com/grpc/grpc-go/blob/06fc26a196350499dd0cf2d...
All that song and dance about programming languages advantages and you chose to use JSON?
Man I hate JSON so much.
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 analogy is about structural compatibility between contracts, not about the wire format the contract is written in.
Well he didn't choose JSON, he chose JSON Schema and since the documentation is trying to hide the existence of JSON Schema and the potential limitations of it when used in combination with e.g. gRPC, when the schema is 99% of the project it's hard to trust the project.
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 at surfacing it more clearly.
You're right about the gRPC fidelity issues though. int64 precision, oneof vs oneOf semantics, enum value mapping, and well-known types all need careful handling when binding to Proto. The tradeoff is that JSON Schema is already the schema format inside OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, and MCP, so OBI can reference their schemas directly without translation. Proto would have given better fidelity for gRPC but required schema translation for every other binding. Picking JSON Schema prioritizes cross-binding reach over depth in any one protocol.
The fidelity limitations deserve clearer documentation. Adding that to the list. Thanks for pushing on this.
[dead]
Out of curiosity, what would have been better?
What are the limitations of json schema?
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 the spec to any one ecosystem. Proto-level fidelity would center gRPC. A custom IDL would fragment tooling. JSON Schema is the neutral ground.
The limitations are real, especially with proto. For example, our own proto interface creator implementation maps 32-bit integers to JSON Schema `integer` and 64-bit integers to `string` to avoid JSON precision loss beyond 2^53, following Proto3's canonical JSON mapping. Proto enums are int-valued with names; JSON Schema enums are typically strings. Proto's oneof differs semantically from JSON Schema's oneOf. Maps with non-string keys can't be expressed directly.
These affect cross-service structural comparison, not execution. Executors handle source types natively on the wire, so int64 stays int64 when you actually make a call. Transforms bridge shape differences between operation schemas and binding sources at runtime. The comparison layer works at a coarser grain in v0.1 because that's what makes it deterministic and universally implementable. Future profile versions can tighten comparison precision as the ecosystem converges on the tradeoffs worth making.
Shouldn't AI have made this less of a problem by now?
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 equivalence that could be verified.
An OBI gives an AI agent typed operations and bindings it can use on the first try. No doc parsing, no guessing at endpoints. And AI can generate OBIs from existing specs or use the ob cli to do it for them.
AI and structured contracts aren't competing concepts. Good interface design matters as much for AI as it does for us. Maybe more.
this means AWS and GCP ll have to implement your specification right?
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 without the vendor knowing or caring. Vendor buy-in makes the ecosystem stronger, but it's not required to get value.
The longer game is vendor-published OBIs and shared interface roles (e.g. a neutral object-storage interface that S3 and GCS both satisfy), but one OBI, generated from specs that already exist, is still useful on day one.