►
From YouTube: Spec 3.0 meeting
Description
A
A
C
D
Hey
everybody,
I'm
jesse,
I
live
in
the
united
states,
it's
good
to
be
back.
G
F
F
Good,
so,
okay,
so
here
I
have
a
proposal,
probably
the
I
don't
know.
Maybe
the
four
proposal
for
the
same
topic:
how
to
allow
to
define
the
custom
format
in
the
schema
format,
another
the
default
one,
the
essence
api
json
schema.
So
a
new,
add
new
keyword.
The
custom
schema
to
the
essence.
Api
schema
object.
So
here
yes,
the
essence.
Api
schema
object,
as
you
know,
or
not,
is
a
accented
json
schema
with
the
three
x
additional
keywords
like
here:
discriminator,
excellent
documentation
and
deprecated.
F
Yes,
and
the
rest
are
from
the
draft
zero
seven
from
json
schema.
So
next
to
this
additional
keyword,
the
discriminator
etc.
I
added
the
custom
schema
and
it's
a
object
which
has
a
two
field.
The
format
which
describes
the
format
which
we
are
using
so
in
this
example
is
the
avrom
and
also
the
definition
for
this
format.
F
Yes,
definition
for
this
schema,
and
so,
as
you
can
see,
for
example
like
this
one
is
that
we
exactly
use
the
other
and
then
add
some
definition
for
for
this
schema,
for
this
object
exactly
yeah
yeah,
and
by
this
that
it's
the
additional
keyword
in
the.
D
F
Schema
we
can
use
also
the
reference
like
in
the
adjacent
schema
and
like
in
another
part
of
asset
api
to
behind
and
see
the
schema
format
in
the
message.
Object
is
deprecated
because
we
will
use.
We
will
describe
the
the
separate
format,
not
in
the
message
level,
but
in
the
payload
level
or
the
headers
or
less
in
this
way,
and
by
this
we
will
be.
F
We
will
be
also
able
to
and
define
the
the
another
form,
the
another
schema
format,
not
only
in
the
payload,
but
also
in
the
other
places
like
in
the
extensions
or
are
in
the
channel
parameters,
because
it's
another
place
where
we
can
use
the
json
schema
yeah
and
due
to
the
fact
that
it's
an
additional
keyword,
json
schema.
We
can
also
use
another
json
schema
keyword
like
in
the
title
or
descriptions
or
external
documentation
and
yeah
yeah,
and
we
can
also
use
the
nested
schemas.
F
A
Custom
schema.
You
said
that
custom
schema
is
allowed
to
be
there.
It's
it's
another
keyword
of
our
schema
object,
yeah.
H
H
H
F
D
F
Make
something
like
that,
if
you
define
the
custom
schema,
you
can
only
define
next
to
this
keyword
field
such
are
like
the
title
descriptions.
D
F
Some,
you
know
only
for
the
user,
like
the
external
documentation,
and
I
go
in
this
way,
because
I
think
that
some
custom
format
hasn't
something
like
the
external
documentation
for
the
given
schema.
Yes
or
maybe
descriptions
or
another
meta
information
for
the
users,
maybe
read
only
or
write
only
or
something
like
that.
I
A
A
A
So
isn't
it
like
adding
a
huge
complexity
into
the
mix
yeah?
For
no
reason,
like
I
mean
like.
A
F
F
A
D
F
This
feature
yeah
yeah.
We
have
one
here
for
that,
but
yeah,
okay,
with
some
problem
issues.
F
Very
similar,
yes
yeah,
the
mixed
schemas
such
such
as
one
of
the
payload.
Yes,
so
it
means
that
the
girl
truster
wants
the
functionality
that
you
can
define
something
like
that.
One
of
payload
one
is
adjacent
schema
and
another
one
can
be,
for
example,
the
other
option.
Oh
my
yeah,
god
ram.
Yes
like
this
one,
so
you
have
the.
A
F
And
you
can
define
all
of
in
this
way
in
this
or
in
this
case
yeah
so
by
this
yeah
and
also
the
another
problem.
Why
I,
at
this
functionality
that
we
can
have
probably
a
problem
with
the
referencing
because
yeah
okay,
I
will
create.
A
I
B
E
A
A
A
Only
a
few
people
are
experimenting,
this
pain,
but
on
the
other
side,
if
we,
if
we
allow
this
level
of
complexity
and
on
the
schema
definition,
the
rest
of
the
people
creating
tooling
and
including
ass
are
going
to
experience
a
lot
of
complexity
because
of
these
few
people,
you
know
the
thing
is
that
you
might
have
data
in
ramadan
and
avro
and
so
on.
That's
fine!
You
want
to
mix
them
all
in
a
single
in
a
single
document
and
have
them
mix
it
like
this.
A
You
can
convert
them
in
a
previous
pipeline.
You
know
step
or
something
like
that
in
ci
or
or
manually
before
you
do
it.
I
don't
know
whatever
it
applies,
so
you
can
do
this
job
yourself,
instead
of
delegating
this
to
the
spec
right,
because
if
you
do
it,
if
you
don't,
if
we
do
it
ourselves
on
the
spec
just
for
a
few
people,
doing
that,
like
luca
said
like
the
job
he
was
doing
at
sap
and
maybe
general
is
doing
something
similar
and
on
mulesoft
or
is
experimenting
from
time
to
time.
A
Something
like
that,
then
it's
just
a
few
people
who
are
going
to
actually
have
this
use
case.
Just
I,
I
probably
can
count
them
with
one
hand
right
and
that's
going
to
add
a
lot
of
complexity
for
just
five
companies
or
five
people.
You
know
you
know
what
I
mean
so
yeah,
I'm
not
sure
it's
worth
the
effort
like
it's
or
not
the
effort,
it's
worth
the
complexity.
A
A
A
With
us
zombie
kind
of
message
right
that
you
probably
want
to
do
it
yourself
before
adding
it
to
to
asymptotic.
F
This
is
the
problem,
so
I
mean
it
can
be
done.
Other
questions.
Do
we
need
the
custom
schema
in
the
essential
api
because
you
know.
A
That's
another
thing:
yeah,
that's
right!
That's
another
good
question.
We
may
not
need
it.
We
think
it's
it's
useful
because,
mainly
because
of
avro
right,
mainly
because
of
avro
and
because
of
kafka
community,
so
kafka,
the
kafka
community
is
mostly
using
abra,
so
not
supporting
avra.
A
There
is
like
telling
the
whole
kafka
community,
which
is
a
big
part
of
this
in
kpi,
community
and
users,
to
do
this
translation
process
before
using
facing
kpi
that
I
understand
it's
like
okay,
we're
doing
it's
the
same
argument
that
I
was
saying
like,
but
it's
not
for
five
people,
it's
for
a
huge
part
of
the
community.
So
then
it's
like
okay,
we're
making
life
easier
for
a
huge
part
of
it
right.
So
then
it's
like
worth
it.
A
I
would
say
yeah,
but
if
you're
gonna
do
it
and
I'm
saying
five
people,
not
five
people,
but
there's
probably
more-
I
don't
know-
maybe
not,
but
if
we,
if
we
were
hearing
about
people
like
hey,
we
we
have
to
deal
with
different
schema
formats
all
the
time.
A
You
know
you
need
to
somehow
support
this
and
we
keep
hearing
and
hearing
the
same
thing.
Then
we
probably
have
to
do
it
right,
but
but
other
than
other
than
general
and
lucas
at
sap.
I
never
heard
about
someone
else
having
to
do
it
yeah,
but
but
maybe
just.
E
It's
usually
a
message,
two
versions
like
two
payloads
like
in
two
different
formats
of
the
same
message,
then
I
think
it's
actually
some
something
for
many
systems,
so
something
that
general
talks
about.
But
if
it
comes
to
this
mix
of
avro
inside
json,
that's
what
I
mean
yeah,
that's
what
that's
definitely
like.
I've
never
seen
that,
like
so,
and.
D
A
J
A
F
F
A
I
was,
I
was
thinking.
I
was
thinking
more
of
moving
this
responsibility
to
the
schema
object
not
to
the
schema
object,
but
you
know
like
in
the
schema
so
inside
components.
For
instance,
you
have
schema
and
you
have,
I
don't
know
my
message
schema
and
then
my
message
schema
will
have
from
now
on
will
not
contain
the
schema
directly.
F
F
C
C
F
A
F
Okay,
so
we
have
the
avro
sorry
there's
some
definition,
yes
and
okay,
it's
a
good.
We
can
make
the
reference.
This
isn't
the
problem,
but
sometimes
you
can
have
something
like
this
one
here,
so
you
have,
of
course,
the
schema
format
etc.
But
if
you,
for
example,
want
to
define
the
another
json
schema
in
this
way,
so
you
have
to
make
something
like
that
there
is
some
schema
that
okay,
we
have
this.
This
is
about.
F
A
A
F
A
A
A
F
But
you
can
define
the
additional
keywords
in
json
schema,
so
it
means
that
you
won't
have
a
valid
json
schema.
Sorry,
you
will
have
the
var
json
schema,
but
this
json
schema
won't
have
any
sense
yeah,
because
the
something
like
the
or
not
because
the
out
in
the
other,
you
have
the
type.
Yes
the
record.
A
A
That's
fine,
but
if
it's
I
don't
know
in
the
future,
we
might
want
to
add
xsd
and
protobuf,
and
things
like
this
now,
what
now?
What
right
so.
A
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
how
to
solve
this
like.
Yes,
then
it's
really
possible
that
we
can
have
this
on
schema
level
at
schema
level.
If
maybe
we
can
have
it,
but
we
have
to
then
in
this
case
it
will
fail.
It
would
simply
fail
because
dupa
is
not
just
a
schema.
We
said
that
that
schema
3d
is,
is
just
a
schema,
but
it's
not
so
that's
another
option.
We
fail,
it
fails
to
validate,
and
it's
like.
A
F
A
F
F
H
A
Thing
that
yeah
root,
where
here,
if
it's,
if
we
re
define
like
here
in
the
in
the
in
the
sinking
paper
file,
yes,
we
can
make
sure
that
it's
only
on
the
root,
but
if
it's
only
in
the
root,
then,
if,
if
some,
if
some,
if
you
have
a
schema
where
you
are
defining
this
and
on
the
root,
because
your
payload
is
this
whole
schema.
But
this
whole
schema
is
also
as
a
sub-schema
of
another
schema.
A
On
another
payload,
that's
what
I
mean
on
a
different
payload.
You
know
what
I
mean,
so
it's
like
we
might,
we
may
have
a
say,
for
instance,
I
have
say
for
instance,
I
want
to
have
two
two
schemas
user
and-
and
I
know
I
don't
know-
like
user
has
first
name
email,
first
name
and
email,
and
I
want
to
have
user
with
user
with
age.
A
So
I
have
these
two
schemas
one
has
first
name
and
email
and
the
other
one
has
first
name
email
and
age
right,
so
both
of
them
will
be
used
as
as
a
top
level
schema
in
in
two
different
channels.
Okay,
but
there
is
a.
There
is
a
third
channel
where
one
of
them
is
going
to
be
used
as
a
sub
schema,
not
on
the
top
level,
because
it
has
the
custom
schema
field,
blah
blah
blah
et
cetera.
A
A
A
Different
versions
of
jesus,
yes,
yeah,
but
that
that
is
because
of
the
dollar.
What
was
the
the
dollar.
F
A
A
It's
a
it's
a
feature
of
this
female
in
the
end.
Yes,
so
that
is
that's
okay,
like
we're
not
mixing
we're
just
leveraging
json
schema
feature
which
is
having
a
dollar
schema
property
to
allow
you
that
that's
fine
thing
is
that
imagine
mixing
this
with
protobuf,
for
instance,
yeah
yeah
for
sure
how
how
do
you
do
that,
like.
E
But
you
shouldn't
right,
that's
the
thing
and
it
will
just
fail
like
but
like
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
even
now,
with
current
version,
I
can
have
like
because
we're
like
looking
at
this
example
like
component
schemas,
but
like
you,
can
reference
not
only
within
the
single
document.
E
You
can
reference
schema
from
external
document
that
it's
not
even
asking
api
documents,
it's
just
a
a
document
with
a
schema,
so
I
can
have
a
document
with
avros
schema
and
I
can
anyway
already
do
a
reference
to
a
avro
document
right
technically
yeah
and
we're
not
really
discussing
it
and
worrying
about
it.
It's
just
because.
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
That's
that's
okay,
but
we're
allowing
what
we
are
suggesting
here.
Then,
if
we
have
the
custom
format,
property
is
that
this
object
that
we're
referencing
somewhere
has
a
custom
schema
saying
this
is
now
now.
This
is
ramble
right,
and
this
is
my
ramble
definition
or
protobuf
or
whatever,
and
from
here
we're
referencing
this
object
and
we're
expecting
it
to
work
right
now.
F
So
so
yeah,
as
I
said,
maybe
we
should
only
load
the
custom
schema
on
the
root.
F
A
F
C
Solution
basically,
just
allows
us
to
explicitly
say
it
now,
instead
of
implicitly
always
having
it,
that
we
like
the
way
that
we
have
with
the
spec
magic
solution,
is
just
explicitly
stating
it.
So
the
problem
is
always
there.
It
always
has
been
whether
you
use
it
or
know
about
it.
That's
another
thing.
A
A
So
say,
for
instance,
that
I
have,
I
don't
know,
components
and.
H
I
A
Components
schema
one
right
and
this
one
like
like.
I
was
saying,
for
instance,
let's
just
use
user
here,
okay,
and
it
has
properties
it
has.
I
don't
know
just
use
it
first
name
yeah.
It's
just
keep
it
simple:
email
right,
blah
blah
blah.
Whatever
ingestion
schema
right
so
and
we
have
another
one
which
is.
A
A
Okay,
that
is
no
not
friends.
A
Okay,
disable
globally.
It's
too
much
so
friends,
and
we
have
this
one
friend
and
we
have-
I
don't
know
type
of
friendship.
A
Something
like
this
and
and
we
have-
and
we
want
to
know
who's
the
user
right
and
the
user
is
something
like
this.
So
we
want
to
have
components,
schemas
user,
but
we
want
to
have
it
with
h,
for
instance,
okay.
So
this
is
what
we
have
if
we
allow
here
to
have
custom
schema-
and
we
want
to
put
custom
schema
here
as
well,
because
they
are
top
level
right.
As
you
were
saying
right
here.
F
A
F
Mix
the
schemas,
yes
than
other
formats
of
the
schema.
A
A
A
I
know
I
know
I
know
yeah,
they
don't
want
that.
They
want
to
reuse
definitions,
which
is
different.
They
want
to
reuse
and
compose
right.
The
problem
is,
how
do
we
make
sure-
and
it's
not
by
putting
this
in
top
level,
because
top
level
is
top
level
here,
but
here
it's
not
top
level
right
user
is
not
top
level.
So
what
do
we
do
in
this
case?
We
ignore
custom
schema.
A
We
allow
to
do
this
or
we
fail,
because
we
have
a
custom
schema
inside
a
property.
What
do
we
do
either
way
either
way?
People
will
want
this
to
work
here,
and
here
that's
the
problem
at
some
point,
they're
gonna
say
like
no.
I
want
this
to
be
translated
here
and
that's
adding
a
lot
of
complexity,
because
this
is
json
schema
until
we
arrive
here,
which
is
then
something
else
with
another
custom
schema
right.
A
That's
that's
my
concern
here
that
we're
mixing
json
schema
with
some
other
type
of
of
of
schema,
like
like
ramo
data
types
like
whatever
right,
and
we
might
have
another
one
here
right.
A
So
we
might
have
another
one
here,
which
is
something
else
right
that
might
have
another.
Yet
another
schema.
So
this
one
might
be,
I
don't
know
avro,
this
will
be
protobuf
and
this
itself
is
json
schema
you
see,
supporting
these
in
tools
is
going
to
be
a
mess,
and
you
know
you
know
what
I
mean
it's
going
to
be
like
making
this
work
on
pulling
it's
only
making
things
more
complicated.
F
A
F
F
Okay!
No,
no
in
this
way
that,
before
we
interpret
the
the
additional
format
we
first
validate
yes,
and
in
this
way
by
the
root,
we
can
say
that
you
can
only
use
the
custom
schema
in
the
root
of
the
schema.
In
this
way,
the
component
schema
user
or
user
with
h
or
different.
Yes,.
D
F
A
F
F
A
Point
is
that
we
we're
entering
a
land
that
might
we
might
not
even
want
to
enter
that's
the
thing
like
we
might
not
even
want
to
solve
it
like
are.
We
are
we
to
be
honest,
like
this
is
adding
a
lot
of,
and-
and
you
know
that
I'm
not
a
a
super
fan
of
of
having
json
schema,
and
I
want
to
have
other
formats,
that's
okay,
but
the
thing
is
that
if
we
do
it
like
this,
this
is
going
to
be
a
mess
to
implement.
Not
just
by
us.
A
There
are
other
people
implementing
parsers
out
there.
Mulesoft
is
one
of
them
foreign
platform
solas.
I
don't
know
if
they
have
their
own
parser,
but
I
assume
they
have
because
they're
using
java
so
or
or
they
will
have,
if
right
now,
they're
only
exporting
to
to
async
api,
but
if,
at
some
point
they
start
importing
async
api,
they
might
have
to
create
another
parser.
That's
creating
a
huge
complexity
to
me.
That
is
not
justified.
A
F
Yeah
jesse
wants
say
something:
yeah.
D
Yeah
just
to
affirm
that
we,
if
we
will
at
some
point
to
bring
in
async
api-
and
it
is
already
very
complex-
just
the
number
of
ways
the
async
api
can
be
configured-
makes
it
tough
to
map
it
over
into
you
know
our
our
product,
so
yeah
sloppy
on
additional
complexity
is,
is
hard.
On
the
other
hand,
like
yeah,
we
would
love
to
have
xml
support
and
avro
supporting
the
the
whole
shebang.
So
yeah,
I
don't
know
you
know
quite
know
where
that
leads
us.
Unfortunately,.
C
A
Up
so
so
now
my
my
suggestion
here
is
what,
if
we
just
we
get
rid
of
this
right,
and
I
don't
know
if
it
it
will
be.
A
Know,
that's
that's
the
problem,
the
only
thing,
but
it
will
be
easier
to
avoid
because
you
can
just
say
like
whatever
it's
starting
by
components:
schemas
json
schemas
will
not
be
allowed
whatever,
but
yeah,
but
yeah.
This
might
not
be
even
here
might
be
in
another
file,
so
so
yeah.
It
might
not
even
have
this.
E
Guys
you
need
to
clarify
again
you
you
got
me
lost
20
minutes,
whatever
you're
showing
now
it
is
possible
with
passing
api
to
zero.
Anyway,
you
can
have
two
different
channels.
Two
different
messages.
One
is
afro,
one
is
json
and
you
can
reference
from
json
to
avro.
Technically,
you
can
provide
such
reference.
A
A
Yeah,
the
thing
is:
how
do
you
control
that,
like
one
is
one
of
the
the
options
is
like
what
magic
was
saying
like
we
have
custom
schema
here
on
the
under
on
the
top
level,
but
what
is
the
top
level?
Is
this?
The
top
level
call
here
is
that
top
level
we
can
that
can
choose
to
ignore
it
or
we
fail.
We
fail.
A
Okay,
we
fail
here
or
we
ignore
the
custom
schema,
and
then
we
assume
that
this
is
just
a
schema
and
because
it's
not
it's
going
to
fail
cool,
that's
fine,
but
because
it's
working
here
and
because
it's
working
here,
then
people
will
want
to
use
it
here
and
it
doesn't
work.
And
then
next
thing
is
people
asking
for
this
to
work.
F
A
But
you
know
what
I
mean:
yeah
I've
seen
it
coming
like.
We
make
a
first
step
of
having
this
working
and
this
not
working,
and
the
next
step
will
be.
People
want
this
to
work.
F
Yeah
I
mean
I
understand
your
concerns,
but
maybe
we
should
make
some
surveys
for
that
or
something
like
that,
because
you
know
at
the
moment
only
you
me
jonas
and
lukas
and
jessie
talking
about
is
discus
yeah.
F
A
Happy
to
hear
for
cases
like
why.
F
F
F
E
Yeah
but
now
the
isn't
it
problem,
because
now
you're
showing
this
custom
schema
next,
like
essay
part
of
json
schema
and
but
in
another
example,
I
saw
that
it's
actually
under
this
or
I'm
mixing
the
proposals,
but
I
could
see
that
there's
a
schema,
but
actually
inside
schema,
you
define
the
the
format
and
you
have
extra
definition,
property.
E
Yeah
not
technically
yes,
but
like
it's
super
like
it's
pretty
explicit
you
can.
You
can
see
and
again,
like
I
mean
like
me
personally,
I
don't
see
I
mean.
E
First
of
all,
I
think
it's
a
super
useful
that
we
would
have
this
custom
formats
on
a
component
level
and
and
like
I'm
totally
not
with
the
idea
to
mix
it
inside
the
json
schema
like
like
the
initial
proposal,
but
like
this
is
actually
something
that
is
useful
and
I
think
there
was
also
a
proposal
from
from
michael
from
solas
as
well
like
how
to
enable
that.
So
this.
So
then,
like
it's
not
about
surveying,
we
know
it's.
E
There
are
use
cases,
yeah,
yeah,
yeah,
exactly
and
then
like.
There
are
some
risks
as
well,
but
there
are
risks
with
to
zero
anyway,
and
people
can
misuse
it
and
it's
just
a
better
of
the
definition
of
the
spec
and
the
validations
or
whatever
messages.
A
A
E
Like
for
me,
logically,
it
doesn't
make
sense
like
who
would
really
yeah,
because
it's
not
just
complexity
for
us.
It's
complexity
for
actually
the
developer
that
has
to
handle
two
different
like
they
had
faced
the
same
issues
that
we
would
face
on
the
parser
level.
They
would
face
it
on
the
up
level.
A
This
is
a
third
file
for
reusing
stuff
and-
and
I
have
I
want
to
have
something-
I
don't
know
my
schemas-
I
don't
know-
version
version
2,
whatever
version
2
of
my
product,
and
I
want
to
have
schemas
here
all
right
and
I
want
to
paste
it
here
and
that's
that's
what
I
have
here
and
then
here.
A
We
don't
have
this,
but
we
have
here.
We
have
references
to
the
other
file
that
I
just
created.
We
have
schema
format
here,
but
it's
not
on
the
top
level
right,
it's
actually
it's
inside
many
levels.
How
do
we
make
sure
that
it's
actually
we
find
schema
format
on
the
top
level.
F
A
A
A
A
C
F
A
F
E
F
Yeah
yeah
json
schema,
but
you
can
define
the
additional
keywords
are
nothing
with
the
list
of
schema
yeah
the
problem
with
the
average
that
you
make
the
reference
that
the
avro
you
use
the
type
keyword
that
has
the
record,
and
by
this
you
have
the
error,
because
in
the
json
schema
you
can
have
the
string,
number
integer
object,
array
and
null
yeah
that's
six
and
inside
the
avro.
You
can
use
the
record
and
it's
invalid
value
for
the
for
the
json
schema.
F
For
example,
if
you
make
the
reference
in
the
properties
no
by
the
string,
no,
but
probably
by
the
ram,
maybe
or
over.
I
don't
know
sorry,
but.
F
You
can
have
the
valley
jason
schema,
but
you
don't
know
about
that.
But,
okay,
it's
my
rant.
Okay,.
C
F
A
A
A
E
I
mean
like
I'm,
not
optimistic,
but
good
luck
with
this
survey
like
ask
me
see
how
many
responses
she
got
on
her
survey
on
the
on
these
cases.
Like
it's,
I
mean
we
we
can
all
like.
We
do
everything
we
can
to
actually
be
as
transparent
as
possible
and
allow
people
to
voice
their
opinions
like,
and
even
if
you
do
survey
again
like
in
three
months,
somebody
will
come
and
say
like
no,
no,
no,
actually,
it
should
be
different.
E
So
it's
everything
we
do
it's
public.
The
meeting
is
public.
The
proposal
is
public,
we're
not
releasing
3-0
in
a
week.
E
But
in
two
weeks,
but
so
answering
be
honest
question
how
to
go
forward
for
me
like
if
it
comes
to
this
nesting,
like
I
mean
there's
no
use
case
like.
Why
would
we
even
bother?
No,
I
don't
think.
C
E
But
I
would
suggest
sorry
I
just
complete
my
sentence,
so
what
I
would
suggest
like
what's
the
most
interesting
is
like,
I
think
the
most
pleasure
comes
from
working
on
proposals
for
actually
valid
use
case.
E
So
this
ability
to
have
custom
schema
on
a
component
level,
and
I
would
suggest
like
focus
on
this
first
and
drive
that
forward,
because
there
are
use
cases
you
have
gerard.
You
have
michael.
There
are
people.
E
A
A
The
only
thing
here
is
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
they
all
have
to
be
of
the
same
type
right,
they're,
all
just
a
schema
or
they're,
all
avro
or
they're,
all
protobuf
or
whatever
and,
more
importantly,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
in
the
future
we
don't
just
get
crazy
and
say
like
no
yeah.
Now
it's
easy.
It's
just
one
step
forward,
let's
just
let
them
mix
and
match
because
yeah
we
need
to
at
some
point
like
here's
the
limit
and
we're
not
trespassing
this
limit.
That's
it.
A
C
A
A
And
explain
when
things
should
fail:
why
and
which
limit
we're
not
willing
to
just
pass.
C
Magic
did
you
look
at
the
meeting
we
had
last
time
and
the
comments
we
had,
I'm
not
sure.
F
If
you
agree
with
them,
no
some
part-
I
see
this
part
about
the
complexity
of
this
yeah
and
the
front
side
that
don't
like
this.
Just
that
basic
schema,
but
do
you
mean
the
video
or
the
issue.
A
C
F
B
C
F
D
A
D
A
Of
the
schema
definition
or
dev
or
whatever,
and
then
but
because
you're,
pointing
to
definition,
you're
skipping,
the
schema
format,
keyword
and
then
it's
expected
not
to
work
because
it's
not
carried
over
to
the
child
properties
right.
But
if
you
make
it
part
of
the
schema,
then
the
schema
format.
Property
is
carried
over
even
to
the
child
properties.
And
that's
what
make
it
that's.
What
may
might
make
people
think
that
it
will
work
right.
B
A
C
And
friend,
do
you
mind
adding
the
the
specific
of
the
concern
to
the
pull
request
or
yeah
the
pull
request
or
issue
the
best.
B
A
Yes,
just
want
to
say
that,
even
though
I'm
sometimes
like
very
like.
A
The
specific
I'm
not
exactly
in
the
good
sense
like
excited
in
the
sense
of
going
against
something
yeah.
I
still
think
it's
a
good.
It's
a
good
work,
so
so
yeah
don't
like.
Don't
feel
that
this
is
me
against.
Okay,.
A
E
Again
make
it
better
again,
I
just
wanted
to
have
a
joke
anyway.
My
my
only
feedback
like
mache
next
time.
If
because
I
advise
you
to
start
with
use
case,
or
at
least
like
the
the
problem.
E
You
jump
directly
into
new
new
keywords
and
started
talking
to
them
about
them.
It's
it's,
at
least
in
my
case.
Maybe
it's
just
because
of
me,
but
I'm
sometimes
it
takes
me
a
minute
too.
So
I
it's
like,
I
would
be
on
the
youtube
channel,
getting
a
messages
with
delay.
So
it's
hard.
I
I
need
some
time
to
catch
up
with
what
you
mean.
Yeah.
F
E
I
think
it
might
be,
but
you
have
to
respect
that
sorry.