AsyncAPI Related to AsyncAPI Spec 3.0 release, 12 Oct 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Spec 3.0 meeting (October 12, 2022)

Description

https://github.com/asyncapi/community/issues/476

A

Blah blah blah.

B

I think we're live. Maybe yes did.

C

You enable live transcript, yes,.

A

I think I've remembered everything this time. I hope.

C

Probably not that's exactly because I don't see them. That's why I'm asking.

B

C

Youtube, it's visible I, just don't see it in Zoom, I, don't know. Okay,.

A

Do you have to enable them individually.

C

And where on the zoom yeah, no no I should say them, I, don't know why I don't see them, I usually see them.

A

I can try and disable and enable them again.

C

No you're not able you have to do it. It's only possible before you start live streaming.

D

No, it is enabled I can see in.

C

Youtube they're they're, visible yeah.

D

C

So it's just my perfect.

D

You should have a button at the bottom. It's a live transcript.

C

Now I I, clicked on show subtitles. Okay, smart, nice.

A

So it wasn't my fault. Yes,.

A

Perfect all right welcome everyone to another spec 3.0 meeting we have.

A

uh We have. We have all right plug out. um Does anyone want to introduce themselves before we get into it?.

B

A

All right, that's, okay! You don't have to so this time. We are. We have two items on the agenda, um but before jumping into it is there anyone who wants to discuss anything not on the agenda or want to bring something up.

A

Okay, let's jump into it then um so, like I did add your item to the agenda as the first topic. um Do you want to start off or.

B

D

So can I share my screen.

B

Yes, you can uh perfect, I know so.

B

B

D

So basically, what I'm going to discuss is basically use case that we have for Glee and we are pushing to add some new features in the bindings for a websocket. So that's what I'm going to talk about like? Why do we need it and that's it so so this is the PR that we started talking about.

D

I did send the pr link of the pr in the chat, so you can see it okay, so we are just trying to add so we're just trying to add two parameters: header values and query values in the web socket bindings so which will let us pass the actual, headers and query in the spec right.

D

So this is something we need, and so what is Glee, if you ask so Glee, is a framework which basically makes it makes it easier to build a server-side applications and it uses a Sync API specifications and you write your own business logic as a function and you connect it.

D

But that's all you need to do and it basically Spin subserver and handles all the requests to the right channels or not so you just you just need to do very little and you can use and everything is connected, like documentation, get generated from your spec and everything that stays in our place.

D

Okay, so thing is: why do we need parameters and website bindings right? So this is a PR that I'm working on right now.

D

So, basically, what it does we'll do once you can watch is allow me not only act as a server, but also as a client. Okay. So what that means is we will be able to receive Connections in the server and you'll also be able to connect to other websocket servers.

D

So when we need to connect to the websocket servers, we do need to pass in headers and different other authentications tokens to actually kind of make the connection happen, and so for that Glee so like to achieve that, we are trying to add the two different header parameters.

B

D

That we can send in headers and query values through bindings, and so this is how you this is, how you define what the headers looks like, and we.

C

Actually have to pass in the headers.

D

uh So that the server can actually accept that and like the couple of ways you could do it and this kind of going with this spec, because that makes more sense because most of the things are already in the spec, so I could just write. These are the headers they're going to pass or you're sending and it stays the same place uh other than that we could use a separate config file that we were using, but it is basically the same structure that our specification is.

D

So it's like you're writing same thing twice it doesn't it's going to make weird player to repeat yourself right, so that's one problem with it. So that's why I try to go with that uh other than that we can use extension to pass in values, but I guess uh it doesn't bindings, doesn't support you extensions correctly.

D

So that is something and like okay. So this is the main thing and uh if you read about read the initial PR, let's see Fran has given some ideas, one of which is uh something I like, and you can share you the link as well, where you could have a separate feature, respect for variables and stuff and like it's a separate component, it has all the variables and we reference them into different servers or channels and use them as uh use them to pass in configurations secret configurations.

B

D

C

Yeah so I have, uh can you can you scroll a bit up.

C

um Yeah, the the section send header and query values from client side, so you have, on the left hand side you, oh no, no, it's it's I'm, just telling others what I'm looking at. uh So that's the actually what you have in the middle of the screen. So on the left, you have the the current headers binding uh for um websocket yeah right and on the right hand, side you have what.

D

C

uh Sorry, what.

D

We want to add to the appendix yeah.

C

Yeah exactly so something that is not yet there and you you want to solve your problem with by by adding this specific um website, websocket binding. Only right, that's the yeah. And now can you um can you explain because I'm not uh I'm, not agree um user at all, yet maybe one day, but basically they. What do you mean?

C

uh What do you mean by this uh using a separate config file? What do you? What? What is this config file? What is it.

B

D

It's like, if you uh in in next chance you have this config file like next dirt config.js. So we have our same configuration file for us where we basically specify uh different, passing already built servers or not so there we could pass the authentication headers like this. It's like just considered as the next. How next does it like the same?

D

It's a config file for our application tool. Add some extra parameters.

C

Is it something you write or is it because I know that concept of Glee is that um some of the code is it's like it's like in sync, with using API file, it's generated out of a single API file but like in in case.

D

Of this, this is yeah. We write. We write the Billy config file.

D

We write this config file.

C

Okay, you write it manually. Okay. Now, if you write it, okay, you write it manually and now the problem is that you write it manually and you have to manually specify the headers. That's the.

B

C

That's the core of the problem, yeah and.

D

So if you look into this, if you look into this, it's like I'm writing the same thing that is already written in my spec right, like the server the channel, and then you are specifying the bindings. So it follows the same pattern as our spec, so why not have it inspect like you're writing respect two times? It's like okay,.

B

D

A

Can I ask a question yeah.

B

A

um Have you tried using the parameters and message headers that are natively in the spec at the moment.

D

uh What do you mean by link.

A

D

I mean you were telling I'll, be adding message: I'll be adding headers inside messages. So it's like message.

D

uh Actually we didn't try that, because.

C

You guys are only four channels right, uh so.

A

Yes, parents are suffer challenge, but with the message you can Define headers for the message itself and you can also Define in parameters.

A

You can also Define, if I remember correctly, the location of of the parameter which can be part of the header itself, but it's I, don't think it's been used that much I'm, not sure if we actually have an example where it's being used but I'm pretty sure that it is possible just don't know, to which extent that's why I'm asking whether the native keywords as part of the spec, currently whether they are enough to do this or not.

D

Parameter, object says that you have to: it has to be schema or reference object.

C

And it's your channel anyway, only just to clarify like it's, not for header right, yeah,.

B

A

But isn't that isn't that why we have the message headers? That is part of the message: object.

B

If you look at the it's.

A

Here we have, we have headers keyword where you can Define what the headers are.

A

Of course, they must not be protocol headers, which I don't know what I'm assuming it's something about the NATO.

D

It says it, it is a schema object like you, like, you, define the schema and then the value is uh like checked according to the schema, but we want to pass the value itself.

D

We want to parameter that could take in the.

C

C

Just to clarify I think like so because, like Giannis you're pointing to message headers but and as far as I know, uh suvik is working on binding or websocket, but not on a message had a level but on the channel binding.

D

C

um So because, like in case of um websocket uh Jonas, you don't have headers basically in messages. So that's why you need to specify special headers on a channel lever, Through The Binding, because that's how the authentication Works, basically in in websocket, that like headers, is only used to really authenticate on when you connect to the uh to the server um and parameters are only for channel names. So they are not be helpful here, but my I would I would ask like if, because like.

D

C

Web sockets, we know that this there's this special case. There are no channels, basically yeah.

B

C

You just connect to a specific um um I, don't even know how to say it like path, um endpoint whatever. um So why can't? We specify because, like what you need like what you show in your example, is, for example, that the the header is better and there's this um and there's this placeholder, the environment, variable token right, yeah.

D

So yeah, the environment variable token is something it's like. You can hard code the value, but I was thinking. Maybe if we even do this, we can extract it and then uh try to access our environment variable and figure out what token corresponds to if, like it matches. So it's something it's something. Glee does not not something inspect, uh not something bindings.

C

But this isn't better is shouldn't this information, be on the server level um and like when you when you, when you specify, because, like like the async API spec, is now all designed in the way that you specify authorization details on a on a server level light.

C

So you basically explain how to connect to the server and you have this special security scheme object and you can specify that, um like just looking now in this bag, you can specify, for example, that the format for um authentication is better format, um so you can already have this specified on the server level that it's better.

C

um So you in your code, you can interpret such as an API document. At least I think I understand your use case, but you, if you would have on them on the servers level on web sockets, not only URL and protocol, but you would also have this information about authentication specified and that the better is the um the format. Isn't it enough for you that you can then in your in Glee, you can interpret it as okay, so it's a web socket, but it's secured with this particular security format.

C

So I know that in case of websocket, basically a header that I have to pass with authentication property, better plus the token and then it's up to the Glee to Define. What's the environment variable for the token right, yeah.

D

But when we will act as a client, it will add to other websocket servers that is not like. Other people have different kinds of authentication right, like somebody I have seen some web sockets that you use only uh query. Query values like you, do question mark and you send a code and they validate you through that.

D

So it has to account for all other all other use cases, or if someone is using a different kind of authentication you can have like they should be able to and I have that thing. Also, it's.

C

Okay, so what's your? What you're saying is that, even in case of Bearer format, somebody is allowing to push it through the query parameters when connecting to the channel.

B

C

Oh interesting.

B

D

Since uh websocket doesn't have channels, I have seen, people can use Query values to specify channels right like there is a URL, and this query values basically tells you which channel or which thing you are going to listen to or like send something. So you need to send query values specific to the Channel. I mean the connection.

A

It might never show something just work: okay,.

D

Say stop sharing.

A

I think I can override it actually.

B

A

Yeah, so what I'm talking about is that we have so I know that that generally parameters, the part of the path of the channel the problem is or the thing is that we have this location, runtime thing that can Define different places for that parameter and I'm unsure whether this is actually a valid, but I think it is I just haven't used it before so take it with a grain of salt.

A

But if you did find the parameters like this, isn't that the same as what you're trying to achieve with bindings, which is just in this case it natively within this bag itself?.

D

I mean even like in the documentation of parameters says it should be a schema object, but we kind of need like we need a we needed to say it could be a scheme object, but also a string or object or values like it has to it's, not a schema. It's a value.

A

And what is the value that you want it to be.

D

So it's like suppose, you're connecting to a server and you want to pass in the header. So you pass in the actual header value in that parameter.

B

A

But wouldn't that be the same as doing this yeah I can't remember what it is.

D

Like you can do that, but it says it should be a like this const.

A

It's true that you, you can't Define here exactly that uh that this, for example, is a parameter that you provide. That's not possible with the schema, but it is possible to, for example, do.

A

uh Is it match no format? Nate I can't remember breaking something, so you can for example, say well, we we must match this and then some other value, but that's of course not until you actually perform the action where it's realize what that value is well that token, um but, as you also touch it's, it's a bit, um I'm, not sure whether you actually want to do do it with parameters and headers instead of the security scheme, objects, which also has this token.

A

As I recall, has the stock token uh possibility I think it's the API key right I would assume that would be possible as well.

A

Because, within the security you can also, you can Define exactly that. It's part of the headers, for example, or query.

B

A

I'm I'm just challenging whether we really need a binding for it or whether we already supported that. That's something.

C

Actually, I think that your example Jonas, um we probably are missing some validation on the parser. It should actually fail.

C

It should fail like it should highlight that the Authentication uh parameter is not really present in the in the channel name like because the spec is pretty clear here. Like parameter. Object, describes a parameter included in the channel name.

D

B

D

Slash authentication, it has to be.

D

uh So I've sent another uh PR, so this is this PR kind of the same. It's trying to do the same thing that I am trying to do, but a bit different.

D

uh Approach so they're not trying to add a new uh new parameter but exist changing the existing parameter so that it can support both uh scalar values and also uh schema schema.

A

I haven't seen this one before.

C

But how this one relates, you mean.

D

So they are also trying to uh pass in scalar values. I mean wait. So how do I right so the scalar parameter values and I almost tried to do the same thing, but what I'm doing is I'm, creating a new object, called header values or query values, but they are trying they are passing in the same with the same existing parameter, but so they are just changing that, since the parameters this they want to change is is.

D

So they want to update the old ones with the channels.

B

Okay, so they are.

D

So they are adding key value so and Kafka key should be a schema, so they are changing it. It could be a schema or a string value like it could be a schema or a stinger, so you can Define the schema or you can pass in a string value as a key property.

D

B

D

I share my screen: yeah.

B

So like this, so.

D

Here you can see uh the property key, it could be either a foreign.

D

Or could be a schema.

D

One of these two.

A

I, don't think I understand the correlations.

B

uh Okay, so yeah.

C

In this message, I guess you want to.

B

B

D

Websockets right now.

B

D

Here's it says: query and header should be scheme objects right, uh because you define how the header should look. So what he's trying to do is is adding schema, query should be, could be a schema object and a stream, so we pass in schema or we pass in the value in the in this query.

A

D

I'm also trying to do the same thing but I'm introducing a new parameter. So it's like. Should we introduce a new parameter or.

C

Oh, that's what they're doing.

A

I actually haven't seen it. It's just rewinding something.

C

Yeah, it's pretty fresh uh prequest, I. Think.

D

Yeah, it lasted last.

B

Week, yeah yeah foreign.

C

There was some slack discussion: I see, hey wait, but it's Kafka related. It's not mqtt. It's not a websocket I mean.

B

A

Okay, is that really not possible to Define queries and headers in respect.

D

So like we can Define equation headers, but even a pass, the value, the actual value so.

B

A

B

D

B

D

Right we schema object, means we Define. How query should look like how this query object should look? That's what scheme object means, and you also, but in Glee as a client, it has to send the query object, so it needs a parameter where it could say. Okay, this is the query. Object, object.

A

Yes, but the schema and the schema object only defines the structure for it.

B

Yeah and we've.

D

Got a simple real values.

A

But generally you don't want to have the actual values within respect to you.

D

Yeah, generally, you will so I guess we could use extensions because, like Glee is using everything as a release using spec to run everything, so it kinda needs it's like. As a user. I am writing the spec so that Lee could interpret it and do certain things.

A

Also you're, looking for almost like an ex like you can Define examples for the headers themselves. Is that what.

D

A

D

Not that actually that's like not example, we pass the actual values.

C

But you can, you can do it with schema objects right uh like with headers schema objects. You can specify that it's, the the properties called um it's called um authentication, and then you can specify with uh I guess that I think the regex is totally okay in um in schema objects, so you can specify it with the with regex. How? Actually the value should look like that you should be able to do it like.

D

Yeah, so to add the value it's it's like kind of like a hack, so when someone else is using eblink, you have to write regex for this algorithm. Yeah I just want to pass the values.

D

I think it's like. We know we understand it, but most people like trying to create it as easy as possible for users.

B

C

So regex is is kind of not nice, I, guess what you uh I I, think I know what you're saying, but there are also other um options like uh I. Don't remember them, but I think you can even say that there's just one possible value, um don't remember the it's constant or or default I. Don't remember the keywords.

A

C

No, but inam is uh usually for least right.

A

I mean usually.

C

But there's also this keyword in Json schema when you can explicitly specify what's the and that that's just yeah uh so Civic you can with Jason schema, you can say: okay, the const is for authentication it's um better and dollar token, although I'm still not sold by the idea of our token but yeah, you can do it. Yeah.

D

Yeah, like I, would say it's not to look in the dollar token, because that is something uh I was thinking um as an extra feature in Spanish.

C

Okay, okay, so basically, dollar token is not uh the scope of this. For now, right, yeah.

D

Just to be able to pass the thing and.

B

A

So all of this discussion is just to add a specific value for a specific header, yeah or query more yeah yeah now I get it.

A

Yeah I'm on board, with what Lucas is saying that it it to me. It makes sense that you added alongside the query and the headers where you define the structure there. You also Define what exactly the values can be if you want them to have specific values, yeah but I'm, guessing that, even though that you said it was out of scope, was the idea to have some type of templating language for for those values, so it can be.

B

D

Changed at some time or so that's something Sean kinda was talking about in the uh comment, so he was like he was telling. Maybe this could be a feature in this pack where we actually Define variables as a component, and we can use it and there we basically say you can have this dollar or something, and we will pass it through and try to figure out if, if environment variable has that token, and it will fetch it and kind of create the string.

B

D

B

D

Other parts of the spec can also use it.

A

If we want to do that later, we would have to go around Json, schema, I. Think like you, you can't have it part of the schema object, because then you change the.

A

Spec has to allow it right. You have to find somewhere that this is a standard that we are following for this specific, like this value can be a templating language of some sort where you can replace them at runtime or in some other case and Json schema doesn't allow this at any point. Maybe we could extend it, but that would even be too complex. So.

C

I mean like in the bindings we can like bindings are more flexible than the spec, uh especially that they're not yet under V1, so headers can be, can also have different schemas or different definitions. Definitely it's just a matter of like if, if it makes sense to.

A

I mean yes, everything is possible, but the complexity behind, adding that, on top of of something without having it, as as a standard Behavior would I think be too complex for tooling.

B

A

D

uh Or also like having uh extends uh extension for bindings could also solve it like you can see, X header value or something it could be anything, and then you can use it.

B

B

D

That was what I had to say: uh yeah.

D

You can start with the few things. uh I'll stop shade.

B

D

I will look into more uh for how we can use parameters. If you could, you could not use diameters, but you could use others ways to do it. It's back and I'll update the pr uh come into the pr.

C

Yeah explore this idea of constants, yeah and or or if really it cannot be solved on the on a server level, with the with information about authorization because, like it, looks like it's mainly just because of authorization right.

B

C

For any other yeah.

C

And we have this binding on the server level as well, so maybe web socket binding on the server level should somehow.

B

C

Refer to the authorization items.

C

But um in case of environment variables, that's I think it's separate discussion because, um as far as I remember from your request and websocket, that's why you pulled it in into 3-0 meeting, and it was because, like Fran was also referring to um things like, for example, in case of Kafka, when you have schemas like damn it I have so many flies here. Sorry, uh so um he he.

C

He was also talking about environmental variables in the context of um oh Jesus, uh the schema Registries that, basically you want to you, can that you can reference schema from a schema registry in your async API file, but the schema Registries are usually protected.

C

um You need to authenticate to actually fetch the schema, and he was also referring like that. It's the scope of concept of variables, environment variables, extends also to, for example, this part of the stack like how do you? How can you in the spec ify the authorization method for schema registry, but again, I, know that there was this pull request that the presently bumped, um Kafka and Kafka, binding with information where you can specify now specific details about this camera schema registry so again might be that this variable concept again.

C

It makes sense to solve it through different ways than just introducing some environment. Variable concept, like General concept,.

B

Okay, so I'll look.

D

Into more and I'll update them here and then you can have another meeting with them on it.

B

If any difference, okay.

D

B

D

Sharing foreign.

A

Second question or discussion: that's it's kind of related to that, but not really, then. Is it really not possible to Define query parameters and hit us within async API without bindings.

C

A

C

I thought I, muted and I mute instead of unmute uh yeah query parameters. Were you mean on the channel name.

A

Yeah all I'm questioning is whether the web socket bindings, for example, where we have very specifically defined for Korean headers. It was my understanding before actually reading those Bindings that it was possible to do it natively within this spec itself.

A

So my question is: is that really not possible to do.

C

Like so in in the spec for so, for example, the let's talk about this query parameters, so in case of Kafka and anything else like broker Centric, you don't have query parameters right. uh Query parameters are only in websocket. So that's why? Basically, it's not allowed to have a name with query parameters. uh The channel name can be only um it can it can.

C

You can have separators uh like slash or dots, but you cannot have question mark and inquiry parameters, and so and it's at least from the past I- remember that the the only use case for query parameters is for websocket.

C

That's why you have this query binding like a websocket binding on the channel level, where you can specify query and and I. Remember it just because I was writing this Gemini example on basing on this Gemini websocket API where and they they first version of the API was basically um you were. um They did not follow yet any sub protocols.

C

So you, basically, if you wanted to have specific information, only from a specific currency, you had to connect to the channel, bypassing, not not bypassing, but by passing a specific query parameters with some specific values and to to describe it with using API document. The only option is really to do it in the binding, because you're not allowed to have query parameters in the channel name.

A

Yeah and what about headers.

C

And and headers in uh it's also like I mean you don't have like in asking API. You have headers only on the message level right, but they are in case of websocket, it's useless because you don't have headers when you start exchanging messages, you have it when you pass only the authorization header when you connect.

D

So uh I I in Glee I've been like working with websockets to before this VR and like uh I mean right now.

D

Oh, is it yeah right now we can pass in headers and query uh because, like if, if you're using a HTTP server as a websocket server right like you, can create websockets with http.

D

So so then it can support uh your headers and queries. Yes, also uh this new websocket uh Library specifies you help it lets you pass any address as a different object as a separate object. So if I share my screen, it's a bit of code.

B

D

That's something like this, so you can you use your query values and build the URL to connect to like this, and when you connect to when you create a new websocket instance like website client, you can pass in the headers as an object, so it takes the latest. But now I don't know what goes in under the word. Yeah.

C

But it's only on the con to establish the connection. That's that's yeah.

B

C

The only moment where you send the yeah.

D

So what happens so this is our client side right in server. I can then query on the header. I can take out the headers and uh query from from the URL itself and then I mean then checked like this is the headers we wanted or.

C

Not yeah but again like it's, you you it's only on the on the connection level when you establish the connection with between the client and the server, but when you, for example, send starts.

B

C

Messages they don't there's.

B

D

B

D

You start receiving messages, there's no concept or headers yeah.

C

Yeah exactly yeah exactly so. That's the that's the that's the thing here that you, you need header only to establish this because, like you stop like with websocket, you establish the connection through HTTP, so you you have headers, you can send header with authorization and that's that's done like it's. Even with graphql subscriptions. You also have to first do the HTTP uh authentication, but then there's no headers.

C

So we basically uh like going back to Rihanna's question like so you uh like you, then you can have multiple messages right, so um so, on the message level. Headers, uh you I mean you shouldn't put this information about the authorization in the message. Header! That's why there's this headers property in The, websocket Binding on the channel level, so you explicitly say that in this on this channel you have this query parameters and this headers that you need to have to establish the.

A

So conceptually it just makes more sense to have that definition on the channels for web sockets. Yes,.

C

Because you need this, only when you, when you connect um right.

A

Okay, that makes sense: um okay,.

C

And and although I I think there's one issue where we're um we're not yet hundred percent sure and I, think I was suggesting that might be that headers, because they are used for connection and server, is where we describe the connection. That I think that we have still ongoing discussion in one of the issues in the bindings is that might be that um headers should be actually like. Websocket binding headers should be maybe moved to server um websocket binding yeah. Just remember it's not yet one zero.

B

All right, okay,.

A

It's got to be a bit complex in the end. If we have multiple places for you to Define headers, because in theory it's just the concept level, it makes sense to have it in the channels, but in theory you could just Define it using the message headers even for the websocket protocol, even though conceptually doesn't really make sense, because it's not used like for the specific message, but for when you connect to the specific websocket server right.

A

So if you just have a channel that has one message definition, you could have the headers as part of that message, and it would in theory, make sense I would I would assume. Some would would do this. But then again, if you want it to be more conceptually correct, you would, and if you're using websockets, you would do it via the bindings. Is that how.

C

It's not just conceptually, it's also like um efficiently I'm, not sure, if that's the right word but basically like, but you can have a channel where you have multiple messages. It's not just one right. We have this all off all off.

B

Yes, uh yeah for sure yeah, one.

C

Of yeah, and so you would you so if you'd like to use current message headers, then you would have to basically duplicate the header. All over the place. I mean.

A

C

You have references trades whatever, but it's I think more hacky and it's it might be confusing. Only from remember that we always look at the spec from our perspective like maintainers perspective, so you see it as the whole, but the websocket user doesn't care about the whole. They call care about websockets, so they will look on the websocket, binding and and assumably. They will figure out that oh yeah yeah, that's that makes sense.

D

C

Okay, that's how suvik worked like he for him. It was obvious. It has to be in the mind.

B

C

But yeah, and so I can actually tell you my my story. So when I was writing this Gemini example file and I was like okay. So looking at their dogs, they have query parameters. I went to the spec and uh I can't do query parameters and then I was like hey, let's see the binding and then from The Binding I figured out, I can use binding for it. So that was my user flow.

A

This this brought up so many questions. It's it's not great for the agenda, but that's just how it is so why do we have um not sure we should even discuss it here, but why? Why do we have location for a parameter? Then, if it's.

A

Why why do we have the possibility to to Define where the head, where the parameter is located, if it's only part of the channel name.

C

If you ask me, when I saw you showing this, that it's possible I had mind, I was like seriously. We can do it so I, it's one of the oldest features, I think when I was still a kid and I, don't remember when it was added foreign.

C

Especially that this example there it's um in this spec description, it's pretty confusing.

A

Yeah but because if the description didn't have that phrase where it says that it must be part of the parameters or the channel name or topic.

A

Technically, that would solve your websocket problem or not problem, but that would mean that the websocket and HTTP bindings wouldn't need to specify headers for the channel bindings right.

B

um Could be but potentially.

A

Could be okay, I'm, gonna erase the destination all right? Anything else for this I think there was one more thing, but now I can't remember it, because now we've been over all over.

B

C

B

C

Like this example is weird, like you have parameter in a channel name but they're in the location you specify, the ID is actually in the payload.

B

C

C

I was a good meeting very educational.

B

For sure Michael.

C

And Jesse I'm not sure for others, it was educational, I, hope for you Jose. It was.

B

Yes, thank you. Okay, I'm Jennifer. The first time I worked for a new soft I'm, really interested in all this amazing stuff up I'm here just to learn from you guys, awesome.

C

uh I haven't seen music box for some time here, so it's good welcome. There's one project: that's folks from yourself maintained a testing API. So if you want to learn more just ask.

B

Later sure, thank you.

A

All right two minutes to go I want to quickly introduce this very, very large discussion already.

A

um So a few weeks back, I introduced uh was I started working on a standard that would allow us to reference uh navigation, schema types for the message payload, so you could Define a message payload using protobar for uh xst or any other schema format.

A

Basically, that is not Json um and that sparked a lot of discussion that went back and forth between a lot of different topics and a lot of different um scenarios where it was unclear how the standards currently Define that behavior that the tooling must follow, or what is too expected of them.

A

So I started this discussion to highlight some of the inconsistencies that we currently know of, and maybe even figure out, if there's something that we missed um so I split it up into something like unknown and known Behavior cases, so I started laying out exactly um what is the behavior when we see this specific async API document, for example, for example, this could be if I want to Define message. Payload using another Json schema version than graph 7, which is, or our async API scheme object.

A

um Then the question arised of whether something like this would be possible to do or whether a reference tooling would be able to correctly understand this, um for example, that it would automatically load all schemas that is defined within the async API document and automatically match the ID of the schema, with whatever reference there is somewhere else.

A

So here you wouldn't need to have this relative reference to component scheme, as user signed up that wouldn't be necessary because it was expected from tooling uh charge automatically match those two at least that's the idea, because this is something that has been enabled in the newer Json schema draft versions.

A

So this was just one of the use cases where I'm not sure what the standards Define as the expected Behavior here so I have 10 use cases that I tried to figure out, especially also in terms of non-json references, um for example. How should it be interpreted? How could it be loaded into tooling, etc, etc?

A

um So yeah jump into it. We're out of time. I'll probably introduce it next time as well. Let's see um but yeah.

C

Looks like a easy topic.

A

No, no! No! No! No! No! No! No.

C

Nine days and just 46 replies how encouraging.

A

Yeah, this is one of the rabbit holes that are it unless you really like it. It's gonna be tough to follow so yeah.

C

A

C

It's not your first one.

A

uh But yeah, hopefully it will make it a better ecosystem in the end across standards. Basically yeah, but let's see I'm definitely gonna do some uh some summaries along uh along the process. So you don't have to follow every single discussion that we have um and I'm gonna share it here as well. Yeah. That's that's it for me adding question before we are off.

A

No all right! Thank you, folks, for a productive meeting, mind blown meeting, true story thanks. Thank.

B