►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless WG 2021-04-22
Description
CNCF Serverless WG 2021-04-22
A
D
Want
them
part
of
the
serverless
workflow
specification.
Timur
told
me
that
this
is
kind
of
a
meeting
where
both
will
group
this
course
together.
Yes,
so
you're,
okay,
okay,.
A
D
A
E
C
C
A
A
A
C
A
H
J
A
A
All
right,
three
after
let's
do
this
thing
all
right
since
you're
on
the
call
clements
just
a
reminder.
You
have
a
couple
of
ai's
for
you
as
if
you
weren't
busy
enough
right,
yep,
yes,
yeah
all
right
community
time,
anything
from
the
community.
People
want
to
bring
up.
That's
not
on
the
agenda.
A
All
right
cool,
we
do
have
an
sdk
call
scheduled
after
this
one
scott
did
you
want
to
talk
about
that
topic
about
the
light
of
the
the
copyright
thing
or
not.
F
Yeah
sure
I
was
I
was
asked
about
copyright
on
the
sdk
in
the
go:
the
go
sdk
code
because
someone
wanted
to
take
one
of
the
functions
and
fork
the
code,
but
there
was
no
copyright
header
on
the
file,
so
I
was
asking
doug.
Should
we
go
through
the
trouble
of
adding
copyright
headers
to
all
the
files?
But
people
can
do
things
like
fork.
A
Does
anybody
have
an
opinion
on
that?
One?
I
I
mean
technique
is
probably
a
good
thing.
I
just
don't
know
whether
it
technically
matters
that
much
clemens
you
seem
to
have
a
legalistic
type
background
in
some
respect.
Do
you
have
an
opinion
on
that?
One.
Sorry,
sorry,
copyright
headers
in
this
in
the
source
files
for
the.
J
Sdks,
don't
know
actually
whether
the
yeah,
I
don't
know,
okay,
whether
that's
important
okay,.
K
K
A
I
A
Okay,
lucas,
you
came
with
me,
did
you
have
opinion
on
this.
K
D
D
A
F
Haven't
because
you
know
it's
just
it's
not
something
we
did.
A
Okay,
let's
put
it
this
way,
let's
speed
this
along.
Does
anybody
object
to
saying
we
should
put
a
copyright
header
on
the
docs
and
the
sdk
folks
can
figure
that
out
whether
it's
the
one
that
scott
put
into
the
chat
right
now
or
different
one?
The
sdk
folks
can
figure
that
out
for
themselves,
but
we
should
the
question
before
us
is
yes
or
no
should
we
do
it
any
objections
to
saying
yes.
F
A
A
A
A
Okay,
antonio,
since
I
don't
see
timor
on
here,
is
there
anything
you
want
to
mention
from
the
sdk
side
of
that?
I'm
sorry,
the
workflow
side
of
the
house
that
people
might
be
interested
in
knowing.
D
Don't
know
sorry,
I
don't
have
anything
to
bring
here.
Okay,.
A
That's
fine,
we'll
just
keep
on
moving
then
okay,
pr
process,
so
unfortunately
I
did
reach
out
to
but
a
grant
about
how
we
were
heading
towards
scott's
proposal.
He
never
actually
responded
to
me.
So
I
don't
have
a
definitive
answer,
but
I
suspect
he
probably
doesn't
care
so
much
about
the
process.
Based
upon
his
previous
comments,
I
think
he's
just
more
interested
in
making
sure
we
have
some
sort
of
human,
readable
release,
notes,
type
documentation
and
the
actual
mechanism
to
get
that.
I
don't
think
he
cared
too
much.
A
A
Okay,
so
we'll
go
ahead
and
do
that
so
scott?
Will
you
take
the
steps
necessary
to
do
it?
Do
whatever
is
or
to
get
us
access
to
the
tooling
or
to
put
the
tooling
some
place
in
our
repos
or.
F
Yeah
yeah
we
can,
we
can
do
all
this
magically,
so
I
make
it
maybe
I'll
make
an
issue
and
assign
it
to
myself.
A
A
Cool,
thank
you
all
right,
all
right
cool
before
we
jump
into
the
pr's
any
other
any
other
topics.
People
want
to
bring
up
that.
We
need
to
talk
about.
E
I
just
was
struck
by
what
scott
just
said
about
negotiate
with
all
the
other
sdks.
Is
it
important
that
we
all
have
the
same
process
or
if
the
end
result
is
the
same?
Is
that
okay,
because,
like
we
already
have
a
process
with
the
javascript
sdk?
That
does
exactly
what
we're
talking
about.
A
A
Okay,
now
just
reading
john's
comment
all
right.
Okay,
any
other
topics
to
bring
up
before
we
jump
into
prs.
A
All
right,
john,
do
you
want
to
talk
about
this
issue
or
do
you
are
you
unable
to
come
off.
A
Mute:
okay,
we'll
wait!
Tell
you
what
clemens
oh
hold
on
man.
A
I
was
going
to
say
john:
how
long
are
you
going
to
be
because,
as
long
as
you
can
eventually
come
off
mute
at
some
point,
I'll
just
defer.
C
A
Okay,
let's
wait:
let's
wait
on
that!
One
then,
because
there
were
some
changes
there
and
I
just
wanted
somebody
to
talk
to
the
changes
to
make
sure
people
are
aware
of
them
before
we
approve
it.
Okay,
yeah
I'd
rather
have
john.
Do
it
too
all
right?
So,
let's
move
on
to
jem's
issue
since
jim.
I
just
noticed
you're
on
the
call
cool.
B
I
I
think
that's
simpler
yeah,
I
I
I
had
a
go
at
this
on
friday
and
I
need
I
think,
I've
when
I
stopped
thinking
about
it
actively.
I
think
I
had
some
ideas,
so
I
will
try
and
get
those
in
for
next
week,
or
at
least.
B
Yeah,
okay,
cool-
I
I
did
have
one
question
for
the
group
I
mean.
Obviously
I
I've
been
trying
to
do
an
xml
schema
for
this,
because
you
know
a
lot
of
tooling
would
understand
that.
But
I
think
what
would
or
from
the
guidance
from
the
group
last
week,
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
not
really
very
schema
friendly
yeah.
So
I'm
wondering
if
there's
an
opinion
about
you
know:
ditching
a
schema
and
just
making
it
just
a
convention.
A
B
I
mean
it
has
advantages,
obviously,
because
you
can
just
jax,
be
it
and
you
know
you've
got
a
lot
of
code.
Gen
tools
available.
It's
when
you
get
into
using
any.
I
think
the
value
of
a
schema
sort
of
degrades
a
little
bit,
but
I
say
part
of
this:
maybe
it's
so
long
since
I've
done
schema
design
that
some
of
the
constructs
I'm
trying
to
use
either
don't
exist
or
I've
forgotten
how
to
do
it.
So.
C
E
M
Mine
no
well
to
be
honest,
the
most
of
the
built-in
functions
in
the
first
draft
where
were
drafted
so
okay
yeah,
I'm
I'm
slowly
chasing
up
and
figuring
out
what
we
need.
What
we
don't
need,
so
okay
expect
order
appears
like
that:
okay,.
M
A
Okay,
I
believe
this
has
been
out
there
for
a
little
while
anyway,
so
any
questions
on
this.
M
Yeah
so
yeah,
I'm
sorry
to
to
capitalize
this.
No,
no,
it's
all
good,
so
yeah!
So
so
I
I
started
looking
a
bit
in
the
subscriptions
api
to
also
see
how
we
can
fit
the
expression
language
in
the
subscription
api
and
there
there
are
some
additives
that
found
in
the
filtering.
This
is
one
of
the
first
ones,
so
what
we
are
doing
here
is
that
we
are
basically
claiming
that
we
are
basically
imposing
an
implementation
restriction
when
you
are
implementing
the
filtering
logic-
and
I
think
this
is
too
restrictive
and
logically
not
correct.
M
Without
defining,
without
putting
a
strong
constraint
on
the
order
of
the
evaluation,
so.
A
A
J
So
it
in
most
in
most
programming
languages
as
soon
as
and
as
soon
as
you
are
reaching
the
point
where
you
can
no
longer
can
reach
the
desired
result
of
which
the
the
outcome
can
no
longer
be
true.
You
abort,
which
means
you
you
short
circuit,
but
for
strong
circuiting.
You
need
to
have
you
need
to
have
the
need
to
have
the
order,
so
just
as
in
c
c,
sharp,
javascript,
etc.
J
The
order
of
conditions
in
in
the
conditional
statement
matters.
This
is
the
same
thing.
M
Yeah
yeah
yeah
not
now
a
record
now
yeah,
and
the
answer
is
that
this.
This
is
my
this,
in
my
opinion,
is
incorrect
for
this
kind
of
language,
because
this
language
is
more
like
a
json
schema,
so
in
json
schema
it
doesn't
matter
the
ordering
of
the
evaluation
of
the
keywords
and,
in
my
opinion
this
is
the
very
same
because
you,
first
of
all,
looking
at
our
filters
dialects
that
we
have
today.
M
There
is
never
such
condition
like
the
one
that
you
that
you
explain
here
and
second,
it's
because
you
don't
have.
You
can
never
have
failures
in
a
filter
or
at
least
in
the
ones
that
we
have
defined
today,
but.
J
M
M
That's
exactly
my
point
with
this
constraint.
You
are
limiting
the
optimizations
in
the
filter,
implementation.
A
I
may
not
have
written
this
correctly,
but
I
it
seems
to
me
you
could
write
something
like
this,
where
something's
going
to
value
something's,
going
to
evaluate
to
an
error
which
implies,
I
believe,
false,
but
something
up
front
may
have
blocked
you
from
even
evaluating
that
error.
That
would
have
caused
the
whole
thing
to
end
up
being
true.
M
M
No,
no!
We
here
we're
not
talking
about
the
expression
language
here
here
we
are
talking
about
the
subscription
filters
and
in
the
subscription
filters
we
don't,
we
don't
even
have
the
concept
of
substring
or
we
don't
or
in
general
we
don't
have
any
concept
of
something
that
can
fail.
Okay,
all
our
filter
dialogues
are
defined
to
succeed
and
give
you
a
return,
a
value
which
is
either
true
or
false.
A
M
M
A
I
I
personally
would
like
more
time
to
think
about
this,
because
it
hurts
my
head
to
think
that
we're
going
to
toss
out
all
programming
language,
all
programming
languages
that
have
this
notion
of
order,
a
precedence
order
and
we're
tossing
that
out
and
saying
it
doesn't
matter
that
just
feels
so
wrong.
To
me.
J
Language
this
is
this,
is
this
is
a
logical
expression.
So
so
it's
very
different.
That's
a
schema
language
and
that's
true
for
both
xsl
as
well
as
it's
true
for
for
jc
schema,
is
more
akin
to
a
functional
language
when
you're
doing
effect,
and
then
json
schema
most
pronouns
when
you're
doing
effectively
pattern
matching
against
of
a
schema
object
against
candidates,
and
then
you
potentially
end
up
with
a
match,
but
that's
very
different
here
we
have
a
here.
We
are
literally
have
a
programming
construct,
which
is
a
ds.
M
J
J
Yeah,
but
it's
it
called
it
causes
it
causes
a
logic
graph,
just
like
a
like,
like
any
any
expression
that
you
can
formulate
in
in
javascript
or
in
java
or
in
sql
or
wherever
else
you
get.
You
get.
You
get
a
tree
of
logical
expressions
and
I
would
say
that,
and
I
think
that
tree
needs
to
be
predictable
anywhere
and
everywhere,
where
it
runs.
It
has
needs
to
have
the
same
order.
K
So
with
the
programming
language,
which
is,
is
like
the
order
it
matters
because,
like
what
you
put
in
the
in
the
if
statement
or
whatever,
can
have
side
effects,
so
you
have
this
order
and
then
it
it
stops
at
some
point,
if,
like
the
first
thing
ever
into
false,
but
I
think
in
this
case
we're
just
interested
in
the
end
result
and
we
can't
have
side
effects.
So
the
order
doesn't
really
matter.
You
could
even
like
evaluate
this
different
statements
in
parallel
and
then
like
merge
them
together
later
and
yeah.
J
J
We
might
have
quite
well
have
filters
in
the
future
or
someone
else
might
have
a
filter
extension
that
has
side
effects
that
does,
for
instance,
a
look
up
to
a
reference
database
and-
and
then
arguably,
I
want
to
be
in
control
whether
the
lookup
on
to
the
reference
database
happens
after
I
have
checked
the
precondition,
so
I
think
the
same
is
true.
M
Slinky
your
hands
up,
I
think
the
kind
of
use
case
that
you
have
described
at
clemens
fits
far
better
the
expression
language
itself.
So
when
you
use
the
dialect
of
the
expression
language,
you
can
extend
the
built-in
functions
of
the
expression,
language
and
you
just
tell
the
user
use
the
expression
language,
and
so
you
have
more
expression
power,
especially
more
yeah,.
N
M
Expressivity
and
and-
and
I
think
just
leads
to
a
better
result
and-
and
I'm
going
to
give
you
an
an
example
of
let's
say,
an
optimization-
that
I
can
do
to
implement
the
subscription
api
so
assume
that,
for
example,
my
messaging
system
indexes
by
I
don't
know
by
the
cloud
event
style
and
I'm
able
to,
and
when
I
read
messages
I
can
just
get
the
mess.
I
I
defined
the
filter
having,
I
don't
know
some
some
dialect
before
some
dialect
after
and
then
in
the
middle.
I
have
type
equals
to
something.
M
What's
the
point
of
doing
the
evaluation
in
order
in
that
case,
because
I
have
already
indexed
and
I
already
get
messages
by
type.
M
A
So
so
I'm
wondering
whether
it
would
be
more
useful
to
have
people
write
concrete
examples
into
this
pr
that
would
break
if
we
remove
this
requirement
and
that
way
we're
not
talking
the
abstract.
Okay.
A
A
A
All
right
cool
hold
on
a
second
here
that
one
all
right
lionel
opened
up
this
one
last
week
and
I
believe
it's
just
typos.
Let
me
see
so
just
yeah
missing
an
o
subscription
is
misspelled
right,
yeah,
I'm
missing
an
s
where
the
sb
evaluates
yeah.
These
are
just
simple
little
typos
and
get
rid
of
trailing
spaces.
A
M
Yeah,
so
I
I
I
think
there
there
were
some
misunderstandings
of
the
error
handling,
so
I
just
so
I
from
I
really
wrote
a
bit
that
part
of
the
spec,
and
I
also
added
that
to
reference
implementation,
just
to
show
what's
my
idea
around
this,
so
my
so
my
thinking
is
that
the
expression
language
can
be
evaluated
into
an
expression
can
be
developed
in
two
modes.
M
The
first
one
is
the
fail
fast
mode,
so
where
an
error
triggered
it
just
interrupts
and
returns
the
error
and
that's
it
and
the
second
evaluation
mode
is
the
evolution
model.
Where
you
continue
the
evaluation
and
at
the
end
you
have
a
list
of
eventual
results
and
you
have
an
error
and
you
have
the
result.
M
So
you
have
the
result
and
you
have
a
list
of
event
errors
that
happened
while
executing
the
expression-
and
I
make
very
clear
that
the
mode
that
must
be
supported
is
the
fail
fast
mode
so
which
is
how
most
systems
works
and
that's
it
so
that
the
I
I
I
did
this
pr,
because
last
time
we
speaked
about
that.
I
felt
like
there
was
some
misunderstandings
about
that.
So.
M
A
J
M
Yes,
yes,
so
every
so
every
every
time
you
see
the
spec
that
the
there
is
a
an
operation
that
can
fail
a
built-in
or
a
casting
or
whatever
it's
it's
defined.
What's
the
the
result
of
the
expression?
M
Okay,
so
you
can
and
the
complete
evolution
mode
it's
something
that
can
be
useful
for
doing
complex
error,
handling
and
stuff
in
the
tck.
If
you
go
back
to
the
pr
of
the
tck
one
moment
so
because
it
also
explains
why
this
this
this
concept.
M
C
M
Below
below
below
matt
operators,
should
there
yeah
matt
operators?
Okay,
the
last
one
line
57,
so
957
tells
you
implicit
casting
within
value
string
value
when
you
do
an
implicit
casting
and
and
you're
casting
from
an
integer.
So
you
from
a
string
to
an
integer.
M
M
So
it
and,
and
then
and
then
again,
depending
on
on
the
kind
of
engine
you're
going
to
you're
implementing,
you
can
either
always
return
the
result
or
you
care
or
you
don't
do
it
on
the
result
and
you
just
throw
the
exception
and
yeah.
If
you
want.
You
can
also
show
the
the
java,
the
java
interface,
I
posted
in
the
in
the
pr
that
clarifier
handling
description
of
clarifier
anglic.
M
Yes,
expression
expression
has
two
methods:
one
always
returns
to
result
and
result
is
a
is
a
type
that
contains
the
actual
result
and
and
there
and
and
an
eventful
list
of
errors.
And
then
there
is
the
tri-evaluate
which
just
fails
as
soon
as
there
is
an
error.
J
I
have
I'm
torn
on
this
one,
so
I
like,
I
like
the
fact
that
you
have
very
clearly
well-defined
semantics
for
when
it
fails
and
that
you
have
a
there's,
always
a
defined
result,
and
that
you
were
that
you
return
the
result
and
an
error
together
that
I
think
that's
that
is
intellectually
pleasing.
J
So
I
like
that,
what
I'm
worried
about
or
what
I'm
struggling
with
is:
how
do
we
use
that?
So
so
I
have
a
messaging
engine
that
is
doing
filtering.
J
J
M
How
am
I
going
to
react
to
this?
So
my
my
the
use
case
that
I
had
in
mind
for
this
in
specific
was
when
you
do
templating,
so
you
want
to
use
the
expression
language
to,
for
example,
write
a
template
of
an
extension
based
on
the
other
pieces
of
the
of
the
event.
Okay,
in
that
case,
for
example,
returning
always
a
result
is
something
that
may
be
reasonable.
M
I'm
not
talking
about
the
filtering
use
case,
as
I
said,
as
I
said
many
times
for
the
filtering
use
case,
fail
fast
mode.
If
an
error
happens,
then
it's
equal
to
false
and
that's
fine,
but
because
I
I
want
to
keep
the
language
not
tight
too
much
to
to
filtering,
because
because
I
don't,
I
don't
want
to
have
this
the
language
struggle
tied
to
the
to
the
filtering.
M
M
I
mean
you
write
an
expression
to
define
a
value
of
an
extension
that
is
totally
reasonable
because
the
language
can
return
to
can
written
faults,
connect
on
a
string
or
current
and
an
end.
J
J
M
So
what
what
I
mean
with
template
is
yeah
template.
Maybe
it's
the
wrong
word
for
that.
What
I
mean
is
that,
for
example,
an
event
processor
that
is
able
to
modify
the
event
based
on
an
expression.
J
Is
able
to
modify
well
we,
but
would
that
have
to
you
wouldn't
that
have
to
yield
so
that
doesn't
hear
the
true
or
false
that
use
a
that
use.
Any
number
of
of
of
that
use
any
value.
M
J
So,
just
to
expand
on
this
that
I
don't
think
this
is
outlandish
because
we
have
in
our
in
our
product
in
service
bus.
We
have
actually
the
notion
of
filters
paired
with
actions
where,
if
a
filter
condition
matches,
then
you
can
run
an
expression,
then
you
can
run
a
a
statement
that
might
then
go
and
modify
individual
properties
on
the
message
with
an
expression,
but
that
is
bigger
than
that.
J
J
A
J
A
A
Sorry,
you
see
right
here
that
the
fail
fast
mode
must
be
supported
by
the
evaluator.
Yes,
isn't
that
an
implementation
choice,
because
if
I,
if
I
choose
to
code
up
an
evaluation
implementation,
whether
I
do
a
full
evaluation
or
a
fail
fast
evaluation,
the
user
of
my
code
should
not
know
the
difference.
As
long
as
I
get
the
right
results
right.
So
it
seems
odd
to
me
that
a
spec
would
mandate
that
I
have
to
do
fail
fast
mode.
M
Well,
the
user
knows
about
that
from
the
interface
in
the
programming
language,
where
it's
using
the
evaluator.
Okay,
oh
we're
talking.
M
No,
no
I'm
I'm
saying
I'm
saying
that
my
programming
language
interface
tells
me,
which
is
the
mode.
N
K
So,
for
me,
it
boils
down
to
the
question
if
we
specify
the
ces
coil
language
or
if
you
specify
like
the
implementations
like
with
the
sdk.
So
if
we
want
to
specify
how
how
people
should
implement
it
or
if
you
just
want
to
specify
what
their
language
should
do,
because
if
you
just
specify
what
the
language
or
how
the
language
should
behave,
it
doesn't
really
matter
like
if
it
fails
fast
or
not,
it's
like
in
the
end,
it
should
produce
the
same
result
and
then
yeah.
C
A
M
Yeah,
sorry,
let
me
ask
something
to
youtube,
then,
without
line
three
five:
eight.
Would
it
be
better?
So
I
just
so
just
take
it
as
a
recommendation,
more
than
as
you
must
do,
that.
Does
that
make
sense.
A
I,
whether
it's
a
record
for
me
if
you
change
it
to
like
a
non-narrative
statement
that
says
hey
it's
a
good
idea
for
you
to
support
both
modes,
I'm
okay,
with
that,
I
don't
think
the
spec
should
try
to
mandate
a
particular
implementation
choice,
though.
M
A
M
M
So
this
this
one
is
a
bit
more
relaxed.
A
No,
no,
no,
no,
maybe
it
wasn't
clear
wait.
I
think
you
have
an
inconsistency.
You
say
they
must
always
return
a
value,
but
then
down
here
you
give
an
example
where
it
doesn't
return
a
result
and
in
my
mind
I
equated
the
word
result
and
value
to
be
the
same
thing.
So
here
you're
saying
you
always
have
one,
and
here
you
say
you
may
not
have
one.
So
it
seems
inconsistent.
A
M
M
Okay,
so
there
is,
there
is
such
definition,
but
then
you
don't
need
to
to
to
actually
evaluate
and
return
them.
Oh
I'm.
N
Yeah,
I
remember
we
could
use
the
n
sorry
before
before
yeah.
It's
just
I
I
really
again
like
for
me.
The
old
pr
is
kind
of
trying
to
enforce
some
stuff
on
implementation
more
than
what
the
language
should
be,
because
my
understanding
was
if
there
is
an
exception.
Basically,
it's
false
on
your
expression.
N
If
I
simplify
like
oversimplify,
maybe
so
whatever
happens
behind
the
scene,
should
be
the
implementation
choice
like
if
you
want
to
have
a
try
catch,
that's
a
return
false
in
your
catch,
and
so
you
use
all
the
like
normal
try
and
catch
like
padding
of
your
language
or,
if
like
in
go,
you
return
an
error,
and
that
means
that
you
throw
away
the
result
and
it
should
be
your
implementation
right,
but
what
you
are
really
trying
to
define
in
my
opinion,
was
when
I
subscribe.
What
can
I
input?
N
M
N
If
it
was
me,
I
would
not
even
merge
the
pr
to
be
honest,
because
I
understand
what
you're
trying
I
like.
It's
a
good.
It's
a
funny
implementation
like
it's
a
maybe
a
good
idea
but
like
if
I
was
coding
it
in
typescript.
N
M
N
I
would
have
just
removed
the
sentence
and
you
can
probably
keep
it
in
your
own
implementation
as
explaining
how
you
did
it
because,
like
when
I
read
your
code,
it
was
clear
to
me
like
what
you
are
trying
to
achieve
on
your
side,
because
the
thing
is,
I'm
not
saying
that
what
you
did
is
wrong.
I'm
just
saying
that
I
don't
think
it
belongs
inside
the
specification.
O
Yeah,
I
I've
been
kind
of
head
scratching
around
this
language,
because
it's
anyway
and
I
wanted
to
share
some
thoughts,
one
of
the
things
it
seems
to
me
potentially
causing
some
confusion
that
a
lot
of
us
work
in
kind
of
cloud
and
user
facing
or
some
some
kind
of
software
like
that
and
and
a
lot
of
the
ideas
that
are
being
brought
up
in
this
context
seem
to
come
from
what
I've
observed
in
system,
programming
or
real-time
operating
systems.
O
Where
you
know
part
of
the
specification
is
that
this
method
must
return
within.
You
know
some
a
period
of
time.
You
know
in
milliseconds
or
whatever
it
is,
and
that
there's
a
there's,
a
really
big
problem
in
that.
O
If,
if
those
are
that
is
those
are
parts
of
your
requirements,
you
really
need
the
code
to
be
formulated
in
a
way
that
doesn't,
you
know,
trigger
exceptions
or
do
anything
like
that,
and
this
is
just
me
trying
to
make
sense
of
why
this
thing
has
got
some
of
the
constraints
on
it
that
it
does
it.
O
You
can
go
one
way
you
can
go
from
code
that
satisfies
this
kind
of
style
of
api
and
doesn't
raise
exceptions
always
continue.
You
know,
return
something
to
a
code
kind
of
another
layer
and
sdk
or
something
that
turns
those
errors
into
exceptions,
or
something
like
that.
So
it's
easy
to
go
that
way.
It's
really
much
harder
to
go
the
other
direction,
and,
and
so
the
the
utility
of
specifying
I'm
trying
to
steal
man
a
little
here.
O
The
utility
is
specifying
all
these
kind
of
constraints
and
strange
requirements
is
that
it
means
that
these
sdks
then
can
be
used
in
a
larger
set
of
contexts.
I
don't
know-
maybe
that's
just
blathering
and
not
very
useful,
but
it's
a
thought.
I've
had
to
help
you
make
sense
of
the
whole
conversation.
A
D
A
A
M
I
don't
know
what
do
you
suggest,
I'm
fine
with
whatever
whatever
people
want
so.
M
So
for
sure
we
need
to
get
rid
of
this
line
zero.
That's
for
sure.
I
think
this
one
is
again
is
a
suggestion,
but
if,
as
remy
said,
we
don't
want
to
give
this
kind
of
suggestions,
then
that's
fine
for
me.
A
Okay,
so
let
me
pick
on
some
people
who
spoke
about
that.
Let
me
click
on
clemens
for
a
sample
clemens.
You
had
some
concerns
about
this.
If
we
got
rid
of
the
lines
in
red
and
that's
the
only
thing
we
did,
we
just
completely
ignored
the
stuff
in
green.
Would
that
address
any
of
your
concerns?
Would
you
be
okay
with
this.
J
Yeah,
I
would
because
the
the
I
think,
I
think,
how
you
evaluate
the
the
language
and
whether
you
are
okay
or
not
with
with
partial
completion,
is
something
that
is,
that
is
application.
Specific.
A
M
M
A
Yeah,
okay,
so
I
think
the
suggestion
in
front
of
us
is
for
this
pr
just
adopt
removing
the
red
text
and
then
slinky
will
will
think
about
creating
a
separate
pr
with
a
suggestion
section
where
this
new
text
may
appear.
A
P
So
there
have
been
some
changes
to
the
pr
they're,
probably
smaller
than
they
look
because
of
text
wrapping.
I
I
apologize
in
future.
I
will
try
to
not
bother
re-wrapping
text
to
minimize
changes
as
we
go
and
then
maybe
rewrap
at
the
very
end.
The
changes
in
the
pr
do
not
affect
the
semantics
at
all.
They
are
merely
hopefully
making
things
clearer.
If
anyone
wishes
to
say
they
make
things
less
clear,
then
I'm
completely
happy
to
to
go
back
to
things
doug.
P
You
had
a
comment
about
the
the
paragraph
just
in
the
middle
there,
which
is
now
when
decoding
an
hp
message
into
a
cloud
event.
Any
http
header
value
must
first
be
unescaped,
with
respect
to
double
quoted
strings
as
described
in
etc.
Does
that
seem
clearer
to
you
than
it
was
before?
Yes,.
P
Yes,
excellent
clemens.
I
I'm
now
I've
slightly
lost
track
of
all
the
comments
that
you
had,
but
I
I
think
in
the
paragraph
just
above
that
was
one
of
your
unresolved
concerns,
where
I've
now
put
the
resulting
string
should
not
be
further
encoded
and
then
a
rationale
that
sort
of
was
effectively
what
was
there
before.
So
I
did
want
to
explain
why
we're
not
double
quoting
escaping,
because
it's
not
necessary
when
you've
done
the
percent
encoding
yeah.
P
Comments
were
somewhere.
Yes,
I've
still
got
http
headers
for
cloud
events
card
eventually,
values
do
not
support
parenthetical
comments,
so
the
initial
unescaping
only
needs
to
handle
double
credit
values.
I
think
anyone
following
the
link
to
rfc
2730
will
understand
why
that's
mentioned
yeah.
I
sort
of
don't
want
to
make
too
much
of
something
that
we're
saying.
Don't
worry
about
x.
If
it
takes
a
whole
paragraph
to
explain
what
x
is
then
it's
slightly.
J
Yeah,
it's
just
it's
just
parenthetical
comments
that
I
think
my
reaction
to
that
was
simply
that
I
wasn't
like
that's
didn't
mean
anything
to
me
until
I
went
back
to
the
to
the
rfc
to
look
at
it.
Yeah.
P
Understood
it's
just
if
we
take
a
while
to
explain
what
parenthetical
comments
are
only
to
say
by
the
way,
we
don't
we
don't
care
about
them.
If
you
have
any
suggestion
for
a
better
way
of
expressing
it
concisely,
that
would
be
great.
No,
I
don't
so.
I
think
you
you've
done
a
good
job
there.
Thank
you
and,
of
course,
if
we're
happy
with
the
semantics,
we
can
perform
any
clarifications
later
on.
A
Yeah,
so
I
my
gut
reaction
is,
I
agree
with
you:
didn't
change
the
semantics.
It
was
more
wordings
wordsmithing
more
than
anything
else.
While
we
could
technically
wait
a
whole
another
week,
I
suspect
nothing
will
change
between
now
and
then.
A
However,
what
I'd
like
to
do
is
to
get
see
if
the
group
is
okay
with
approving
this
today
conditionally,
but
wait
until
end
of
tomorrow,
so
that
people
can
do
another
round
of
checks
and
if
they
have
raised
any
concerns
at
all
in
the
pr,
then
we'll
hold
off
to
merchant
until
next
week,
so
basically
conditional
approval
with
one
more
day
of
review.
If
that's
okay,
that'd
be
fun
by
me,
okay,
does
anybody
on
the
call
object
to
that?
Please
speak
up.
A
If
you
want
more
time,
I
don't
think
there's
any
real
rush
to
get
this
in.
That
has
to
be.
You
know
this
week
kind
of
thing,
but
it
has
been
out
there
for
a
little
bit
of
time,
and
I
don't
want
to.
I
don't
want
john
to
have
to
hold
on
to
it
long,
because
I
know
you're
anxious
to
get
this
sent.
For
other
reasons.
L
Code,
given
that
people
seem
to
be
happy
with
semantics,
I've
merged
the
c
sharp
code-
okay,
okay,
good,
okay,
any.
A
A
A
A
Scott
that
link
you
just
placed
in
the
chat
is
that
something
we
need
to
think
about,
or
is
that
no,
it's
just
me
adding
headers?
That's
all!
Oh
okay,
okay,
didn't
miss
anybody
for
attendee
all
right.
In
that
case,
anybody
not
interested
in
sdk
is
free
to
go.
But
if
you
are
interested
in
sdk
hold
on
a
sec,
let's
see
if
there's
any
issues
or
topics
sdk,
I
don't
see
any
okay.
Anybody
have
any
topics
for
the
sdk
call.
Otherwise
we
will
cancel
the
call.