►
From YouTube: AsyncAPI SIG meeting 63 (December 7, 2021)
Description
This is the recording for the AsyncAPI Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting #63.
Agenda and notes: https://github.com/asyncapi/community/issues/167
Chat:
17:04:54 From David Biesack : https://github.com/asyncapi/parser-js/issues/372
17:14:23 From David Biesack : code transformation in PR : https://github.com/asyncapi/nodejs-template/pull/82/commits/5191bfe19603416dd6969fc071805127caad9bf5
17:15:19 From David Biesack : I'll probably drop now, thanks!
17:15:57 From David Boyne : Tried to join and manage kids at the same time, not sure it’s possible, Gonna have to go be Dad 😄, will watch on the catch up, cheers!
17:17:34 From Lukasz Gornicki : https://asyncapi.slack.com/archives/C34F2JV0U/p1638206268228000
17:18:08 From Lukasz Gornicki : https://github.com/asyncapi/community/discussions/187
17:23:24 From Lukasz Gornicki : https://github.com/asyncapi/community/discussions/193
17:27:03 From Sergio Moya : LOOOOL
17:27:13 From Maciej Urbańczyk : XD
17:27:27 From Aayush : LOL
17:28:18 From Sergio Moya : Whats the name of your friend, Fran?
17:30:05 From Sergio Moya : My daughter is saying you Lukasz are wearing a “Christmas helmet”
17:30:12 From Sergio Moya : HELMET
17:30:15 From Sergio Moya : lol
17:31:07 From Aayush : Bye
17:31:08 From Sergio Moya : See u folks! thks
A
We
recorded
this
meeting
so
to
like
whoever
joined
this
meeting
and
do
not
want
to
be
recorded
like,
for
example,
visually.
You
can
disable
your
video,
but
yeah
just
please
be
informed
that
if
you
speak
or
write
something
in
the
chat
for
the
transparent
reasons,
we
are
gonna
share
it
publicly
on
youtube
and
with
our
community.
A
A
So
we're
going
to
start
with
your
topic,
so
david
proposed
a
interesting
topic
for
for
the
meeting
today,
I'm
going
to
share
with
all
of
you
a
link
to
the
issue
where
there
are
more
details,
I
had
it
opened
yeah,
I
got
it
okay
cool.
Can
you
share
it
in
the
chat?
Yeah?
Okay,
oh
yeah,
you
did
thank
you.
So
do
you
want
to
like
introduce
the
topic
or
you
want
me
to
do
it
sure.
B
One
of
so
basically
it
looks
like
the
async
api,
parser,
dot,
parser,
js
library,
parses.
You
know
the
one
of
construct
and
it
returns
it
to
you,
but
it
gives
it
to
you
kind
of
broken
up
and
says:
okay,
here's,
here's
the
bunch,
here's
the
elements
of
the
one
of
and
you
can
you
can
use
each
individual
schema
and
I
can
validate
a
message
body
against
each
of
the
individual
schemas.
B
B
Do
the
schema
validation
on
each
of
the
individual
schemas?
The
semantics
for
one
of
schema
validation
is
exactly
one
of
those
sub.
Schemas
has
to
be
valid,
so
you
have
to
you,
have
to
validate
all
of
them
and
then
and
verify
that
only
one
of
them
matches
and
then
the
overall
message
is
valid
and
that's
just
a
lot
of
work
that
someone
would
have
to
do
in
every
every
generator
in
order
to
handle
one
of
so.
B
The
proposal
in
this
in
this
issue
number
372,
is
for
the
the
parser
library
basically
to
wrap
all
that
stuff
up
and
return.
A
an
aggregate,
json
schema
that
uses
one
of,
and
then
I
don't
all
the
all
the
generator
code
has
to
do
is
take
the
message
body
and
compare
it
to
that
aggregate
schema
and
let
the
schema
validation
itself
handle
all
the
one-off
comparisons,
and
things
like
that,
so
you
don't
have
to
you
know
recreate
that
code
in
every
generator.
B
So
I
don't
know
enough
about
how
and
where
the
parser
library
is
used
to
know
what
transformation
is
really
appropriate
for
this,
it's
kind
of
spelled
out
in
in
the
issue,
so
I
just
wanted
to
bring
it
up
to
to
everybody
to
see
you
know.
What's?
Is
there
a
good
solution
to
this
that
we
can
embed
into
the
into
the
parser
to
make
it
easier
to
write
the
generators.
B
It's
more
at
the
individual
message
level
so
in
in
the
async
api
definition,
I'm
defining
a
single
message
and
it
uses
one
of
so
then
at
runtime.
I've
got
a
message
that's
coming
in
and
I
need
to
validate
it.
So
it's
it's
just
validating
just
that.
One
message
body
against
in
this
case
multiple
schemas
and
I'd
like
to
do
it
just
against
one
schema.
A
A
B
A
It
would
be
much
easier
that
you
get
from
the
parser
a
combined
one
off
as
you
wrote
in
the
issue
and
then
just
use
aj
file.
Once
now,
the
que
the
this
is
on
my
head
in
my
head.
There's
a
question
pops
up
how
strict
we
have
to
be
with
parser
one
as
a
version,
one
like
knowing
that
there's
a
work
on
parser
to
zero.
A
C
C
B
C
A
So
the
use
case
is
pretty
pretty
good
and,
as
david
said
like
it's
not
just
for
node.js
template,
it's
like
the
the
other
template
we
have
for
node,
for
example
the
web
sockets
one.
It's
the
it's
the
same
situation,
so
so
I
would
say
like
because
we
don't
make
decisions
on
the
calls.
Unless
you
want
to
add
something
more
david.
I
would
say
like.
B
A
A
If
somebody
wants
to
join
just
ping
me
tomorrow,
not
today,
because
I
still
I'm
not
hundred
percent
sure
what
really
has
to
be
changed
in
every
repo,
I
will
just
learn
it
by
doing
it
in
few
repos.
I
think
it's
just
group
membership
and
some
other
things,
but
yeah
some
work
to
do,
but
the
the
outcome
will
be
that
we
don't
have
like.
We
no
longer
have
just
a
selected
special
group
of
people
that
can
be
members
of
the
organization,
but
actually
we
will
have
the
etsc
members
there.
A
And
and
now
I'm
I'm
gonna
just
put
updates
in
this-
I
just
want
don't
want
to
put
too
much
noise
in
any
of
the
channels,
not
sure
how
how
many
people
are
interested
actually
with
this
topic.
So
I'm
just
basically
updating
the
the
initial
threat.
I
started
last
week,
so
you
can
just
subscribe
to
it.
I'm
gonna,
just
like
put
it
up
today,
like
put
up-to-date
information
at
what
stage
I
am
and
when
actually
everything
is
done.
A
A
I
I
would
like
to
more
like
like
try
to
address
already
some
misunderstandings.
Not
maybe
misunderstandings
like
I
had
got
some
follow-up
questions
had
to
clarify
a
few
things.
So,
basically
the
idea
behind
this.
This
discussion
is
to
to
like
not
only
like
facilitate
like
what
has
to
be
done
to
start
collecting
use
cases.
A
Okay,
let's
just
forget
that
the
previous
sentence
happened
and
let
me
try
to
say
it
differently,
so
just
to
clarify
a
few
things
about
the
discussion,
because
I
had
some
dm
discussions
with
some
people
from
deaf
rail
from
other
companies
like
so
just
please
remember.
The
idea
is
that
we
have
to
make
it
clear
to
the
community
that.
A
There
are
many
different
options
to
provide
us
with
use
cases.
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
we
cannot
expect,
even
though
it
would
be
super
nice
to
have
people
on
on
public
meetings
on
conference
talking
about
how
they
use
us
in
kpi,
but
we
we
can't
expect
every
company
is
so
open
like,
for
example,
ebay
to
do
it
on
their
own,
and
we
just
need
to
also
offer
option
to
to
have
like
private
meetings.
A
So
they
can
use
their
internal
processes
in
their
companies
when
they
have
to
approve
every
content
that
goes
out
about
their
company,
because
there
are
companies
that
are
pretty
liberal
here
and
they
don't
control
employees.
But
there
are
companies
that
have
a
lot
of
control
like
when
they
talk
about
company
outside
company.
A
There
are
sometimes
really
complicated
processes
to
to
get
acceptance
from
them.
So
this
discussion
explains
that
we
can
also
do
this
private
interviews.
It's
also
called
for
action
like
to
to
people
like
developer
relation
representatives
and
but
not
also
developers
not
only
developer
relations
like
from
other
companies
that
could
also
join
and
make
these
interviews.
So
we
can
get
more
use
cases
because
if
it's
just
one
person
running
it,
it's
not
going
to
go
much
forward
so
yeah.
A
So
that's
just
this
clarification
that
it's
definitely
also
an
option
to
have
private
interviews
and
also
one
thing.
I
talked
with
one
person
that
it's
difficult.
Sometimes,
for
example,
when
you
work
for
a
vendor
company-
and
you
want
a
your
customer
to
also
talk
about
asking
api-
it's
sometimes
pretty
difficult
to
con-
convince
them
to
have
this
discussion
like
because
you
don't
have
much
to
offer
like
yeah.
Basically,
this
so
I'd
like
to
just
clarify
like
we
can
always
like
we're
pretty
flexible
here,
especially
like
five
five.
First,
five.
A
A
Let's
discuss
like
let's
chat,
maybe
we
can
offer
some
workshop
in
exchange
just
for
the
employees
of
the
company
that
wants
to
share
use
case
or-
or
I
don't
know
like
anything
like
some
social
media
campaign-
thanking
the
the
company
that
there
are
always
some
options
that
we
could
give
in
exchange.
So
don't
get
basically
don't
get
demotivated
that
we
have
nothing
to
offer.
We
always
can
try
to
offer
something.
A
A
This
year
when
we
joined
linux
foundation
we
still
did
not
have
like
really
I
mean
we
had
open
governance
model,
but
it
wasn't
yet
working.
We
had
to
set
up
a
tsc,
we
had
to
grow
the
tsc
list,
so
I
was
still
like.
I
was
then
hired
by
postman
to
to
not
worry
about
the
money,
and
so
I
can
still
do
my
job
for
us
in
dpi.
So
I
was
still
like
feeling
I
can.
A
A
Basically,
the
tsc
should
agree,
I
think,
on
these
main
goals
of
the
organization
for
every
year.
It's
not
just
I
mean,
of
course,
I
I'm
not
leaving
so
I'm.
I
still
offer
help
to
coordinate
and
and
lead
some
ideas,
but
basically
the
idea
is
that,
like
now,
whatever
we
do
under
like
asking
api
umbrella,
like
some
new
initiatives
like
one
of
them
mentioned
in
the
discussion
about
the
async
api
ambassador
program,
I
think
they
have
to
be.
A
A
So
I
created
this
discussion
basically
to
to
yeah
talk
about
these
three
main
goals
and
then
in
january,
yeah
have
a
heavy
decision,
yeah,
let's,
let's,
let's
go
but
yeah.
I
just
want
to
highlight
this
discussion
have
a
look
because
it
will
require
at
the
size
of
the
community
that
we
have
now
it
requires.
I
I
work
from
many
people,
not
just
not
just
me
coordinating
anymore,
so
yeah,
please,
please
have
a
look.