►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless Working Group 2020-04-16
Description
CNCF Serverless Working Group 2020-04-16
A
C
C
D
E
B
B
B
F
C
C
F
C
A
C
C
Right
it's
three:
after
when
I
go
and
get
started,
we've
got
a
low
attendance
today.
So,
let's
see,
if
we
can
make
this
quick,
then
yeah
I
still
have
finished.
My
AI
I
still
have
the
to
the
repo
structure.
Ok,
community
time,
is
there
anything
from
the
community
that
you
would
like
to
bring
up
all
right,
not
hearing
any
moving
forward?
C
We
are
still
having
discussions
out
in
the
TOC
repo
around
what
to
do
with
server
lists.
Are
we
gonna
stay
working
group
under
under
app
delivery
or
not?
I
did
hear
back
from
Liz
and
there
seemed
to
be
some
concern
about
not
creating
a
sig
just
for
service
and
I
told
her
basically,
in
the
end
we'll
do
whatever
the
TOC
wants
for
the
most
part,
but
at
the
same
time
we
don't
want
to
get
into
this
rat
hole
of
having
endless
discussions
about
how
to
define
service
when,
in
the
end
it
technically
doesn't
matter.
C
We're
really
matter
is
the
work
that
we
produce.
You
know
the
projects
and
stuff
like
that,
so
we
don't
want
to
just
you
know,
as
I
said
rathole,
and
how
to
define
service
right
or
to
define
it
so
narrowly
that
you're
either
got
to
redefine
it
later
or
continually
explain
to
people
why
our
definition
is
so
narrow
and
means
we
just
don't
want
to
this
turn
to
a
process,
hell
kind
of
a
thing
and
she
kind
of
understands
so
we're
still
going
back
and
forth
on
what
to
do
here.
C
C
I
A
C
A
J
G
D
Well,
I
mean
regarding
that
I
mean
I
did
get
a
feeling
a
little
bit
being
new
here,
and
so
you
guys
his
help
would
be
much
appreciated.
I,
don't
know
much
about,
say,
GAAP
delivery,
but
to
me
they
seem
more
focused
on
actual
applications
running
on
kubernetes,
rather
than
specification
type
of
work.
So
my
question
is:
if
we
do
end
up
falling
under
step
up
Sagat
delivery.
Sorry
how
they
will
you
know
what
what
about
the
specification
working,
how
they
will
be
embraced
within
that
group
I'm,
not
really
fully
certain.
C
C
C
C
Okay
moving
forward,
then
I
know
Mike.
You
said
you
had
to
leave
early,
so
hopefully
we
can
get
to
this
first
PR
quickly
that
that
one
might
actually
be
ready
to
go
or
close
to
ready
to
go,
and
yours
was
just
recently
updated.
So
Francesca
do
you
want
to
talk
to
this?
One
I
know
I
made
some
comments
last
night.
But,
honestly,
all
my
comments
seem
relatively
minor,
but
you
want
to
pick
her
up
to
speed
on
what
this
one's
all
about.
I
Well,
the
the
thing
that
I
still
didn't
understood
what
what
the
group
feels
about
this.
If
we
want
to
move
this
HP
multi
part
together
with
patching
in
in
another
suspect,
more
than
putting
this
inside
HP
Photo
binding
Sam's
back
I
mean
my
opinion
should
live
in
an
order
together
with
batching.
It
should
live
in
an
order.
Subs
back.
G
You
guys
are
awfully
quiet,
I
mean
to
me
I,
look
at
this
yesterday
and
I
think
it
looked
good
to
me
just
just
giving
my
voice
there
to
me
the
the
way
that
this
suspect
is
specific
to
HP
and
that's
what
this
spec
is,
or
this
part
of
the
spec
is
meant
for
right.
So
I
don't
see
why
it
should
be
separate.
K
That's
my
that's
my
that's
my
my
it.
My
initial
thought
is:
do
we
have
do
we
need
this
because
I
I
just
don't
know
how
well
I
know
multi-part
exists,
but
I
just
don't
know
how
well
that's
supported
in
common
HTTP
frameworks,
because
it
is
a
fairly
it's
a
fairly
complicated
thing
to
tease
apart
and
I
know
that
there's
I
mean
there's
email
as
doing
is
using
multi-part,
etc,
but
I,
don't
so.
K
Well,
what
what
is
drive
so
my
then
my
question
is
what
is
driving
what
what
requirement
is
driving
that,
because
you
could
just
as
well
say
you're
that
you're
using
the
HTTP
framing
and
that
you're
using
pipelining,
which
works
really
well
with
HTC
hd2
and
better,
rather
than
using
multi
multi-part.
Basically,
you
start
sending
multiple
HTTP
HTTP
requests
in
a
row,
rather
than
forcing
it
all
into
a
simulation
view.
Request
the.
I
Problem
the
problem
is
that,
having
inside
the
same
developer,
can
give
you
the
ability
to
the
client
to
send
their
receivers,
to
give
them
to
give
a
meaning
to
the
various
events.
I
mean
the
user
can
decide
if
it
can
give
some
kind
of
semantics
of
the
various
events
in
the
same
envelope.
Well,
the
example,
which
is
one
of
my
drivers,
is
the
function.
Our
function
invocation
with
multiple
events.
I
K
I
Was
I
was
going
to
try
to
develop
a
project
which
actually
sends
multiple
events
into
this
interesting
request?
Because
because
a
request
was
not
fed
to
a
single
function,
invocation
with
multiple
events,
your
parameters.
I
K
But
my
point
is,
since
your,
since
your
are
doing
a
single
transfer
effectively,
because
so
because
you
because
you're
grouping
these
those
events,
you're
making
a
single
message
intentionally
to
transfer
multiple
entities
inside
of
that
message
right.
The
message
concept
is
what
we
do
with
cloud
events
so
you're.
K
So
if
you
create,
if
you
create
an
event
with
with
the
content
with
with
the
data
content
type,
all
right,
you
can
already
do
what
you
what
you
want
to
do,
but
we
don't
have
to
go
and
and
manipulate
the
the
transfer
mode
for
this.
If
you
create
an
event
and
the
event
has
my
multi-part
in
it
as
its
data
comes
inside,
you
can
go
and
put
inside
of
that
event,
you
can
put
anything
that
you
like,
including
a
list
of
events.
I
I
K
I
K
But
that's
that's
a
choice
that
you
are
making
and,
and
that's
fine
and
I-
think
that's
a
legitimate,
legitimate
use
of
call
events
but
yeah.
If
you
want
to
do
it
like
this,
if
you
want
to
go
and
create
a
an
event,
if
you
have
10
parameters
and
every
parameter
is
an
event
then
using
my
multi-part
is
a
legitimate
way
of
doing
this.
K
But
the
way
how
you
would
do
this
is,
you
would
send
one
event
which
carries
my
multi-part,
which
has
then
in
each
part
of
the
multi-part
transmission,
contains
an
event,
but
that's
already
that's
a
composition.
You
already
have
the
what
you're
doing
here.
Is
you?
If
you
only
make
this
work
for
HTTP
right,
then
then
this
construct
would
not
be
true
and
would
not
work
on
any
of
the
other
transports
that
we
have
right.
K
The
the
model
that
we
have
is
that
all
the
constructs
that
we
have
work
with
all
the
defined
transports
and
if
you
really
are,
if
your
design
calls
for
having
events,
multiple
events
sent
in
one
group
together
using
my
multi-part.
You
can
do
this
today
by
using
my
multi-part
as
the
data
content
site
on
the
cloud
event,
and
that
will
then
go
and
work
with
all
the
with
all
the
bindings
that
we
have
from
copper
to
impute
mu
T
to
HTTP,
and
it
doesn't
special
pay.
K
C
K
C
I
C
E
C
I
suspect:
did
anybody
get
a
chance
to
look
at
it,
since
the
bulk
of
his
changes
were
made?
Based
upon
the
comments,
the
reason
I'm
asking
is
because
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
whether
it's
I
suspect
it's
too
soon
to
formally
vote
to
approve
this
or
not
just
because
I'm,
not
sure
people
had
a
chance
to
review
it.
So
I
wanted
to
ask
the
question,
though
formally
go
ahead
were
crying.
G
G
C
Okay,
thank
you,
I
mean
at
this
by
this
stage
in
its
lifecycle,
since
we're
not
really
anywhere
close
to
any
other
things
down.
I
I
personally,
like
the
idea
of
leaning
more
toward,
is
it
more
right
than
wrong
and
if
so,
let
it
letting
it
in,
and
we
can
tweak
it
through
PRS,
but
at
the
same
time
our
usual
process
is
if
people
want
more
time
to
review
stuff
before
we
approve,
especially
if
changes.
C
G
Okay,
sorry
there's
one
other
thing:
I
wanted
to
point
out
as
well,
which
is
there
are
made
a
comment
about
this,
but
it
seems
like
we're
introducing
new
concepts
in
the
spec
and
the
other
specs
that
might
be
interesting
to
the
primary
cloud
event
spec,
so
I'm,
just
I'm
curious
as
to
how
people
think
we
navigate
that
whether
we're
they're
defined,
whether
it's
useful
to
if
they're
defined
in
these
specs.
Like,
should
we
if
we
think
that
there's
like
a
new
header
that
should
be
introduced?
E
K
I
think
that's
the
that's
that's
how
we
look
at
it
is.
If
there
are
I
mean
if
there
are
concepts
that
are
new,
then
we
should
certainly
have
them
in
the
primary,
because
I
think
the
primary
is
to
a
living
document
that
should
be
broader
than
the
core
elements.
Spec,
so
I
think
definitions
that
we
have
here
no
subscription
manager
and
discovery
and
all
those
things
I
think
the
primer
should
be
expanded
and
then
pointing
through
the
various
different
documents
that
we
have.
K
So
that's
something
that
we
should
certainly
do,
but
in
terms
of,
even
if
an
additional
layer
on
the
feature
like
the
like
discovery
or
subscriptions
or
any
of
the
other
things
we
might
still
do.
If
that
were
to
require
additional
attributes,
I
think
those
are
by
nature,
extensions
and
I.
Think
in
a
second.
They
really
require
that
that
the
course
that
gets
gets
modified.
F
So
I
think
it's
extending
that
primer
is
a
good
idea,
because
I'm
honestly
still
a
bit
confused
about
the
rope
I
mean
how
the
relations
are
between
event
provider
producer
and
so
on.
I,
don't
know
if
that
holds
this.
Pr
effect
just
can
work
on
this
over
the
coming
weeks
and
months,
but
yeah
explaining
this
new
model
or
the
bit
more
on
the
primer
would
be
a
good
idea.
C
C
E
C
E
E
C
K
K
K
C
So
let
me
ask
question:
did
you
obviously
the
the
PR
rebasing
is
important,
for
we
actually
try
to
merge
it.
However,
in
terms
of
the
content
in
here,
what
do
people
think
does
it
seem
like
it's
right,
basically,
I,
suspect,
I.
Think
the
all
the
normative
texts
are
in
these
two
blocks
right
here
right.
C
C
I
C
B
C
K
I'm
gonna
make
this
relevant
gonna
make
this
brief
amongst
the
the
topics
that
we
had
on
our
list
of
things
for
tackling
in
this
group,
and
then
we
picked
subscriptions
and
discovery.
First
was
registry.
That's
now
becoming
quite
the
hot
topic.
I
know
that
Tim
from
you
know
us,
and
also,
as
we
were
having
this
discussion
said:
you'd
be
interested
to
throw
their
scheme,
our
registry
interface
into
the
ring,
and
so
we're
seeing
effectively
we're
seeing
increasing
needs
for
having
a
standardized
schemer
industry.
K
There
is
around
Kafka
there's
a
popular
schemer
industry,
which
is
unfortunately
under-confident
under
a
proprietary
license
that
customers
are
used
and
there
needs
to
be
something
that
is
unified
and
open,
that
everybody
can
use,
and
so
that's
not
really
working
work
here
and
I.
Think,
in
particular,
the
cloud
events
effort
would
be
a
great
place
to
define
a
common
scheme
or
a
registry
and
I
would
be
delighted
if
we
found
a
sub
working
group
that
could
sit
together
and
compare
notes
on
existing
schema
registry
drafts.
K
We
have
one
and
then
can
probably
come
out
with
a
spec
that
defines
a
simple
model
for
a
common
approach
for
our
industry.
The
way
I
think
about
this
really
is
it's
nothing
more
than
a
crud
service
that
allows
you
to
store
and
then
retrieve
sterilization,
schemas
from
a
central
place
so
that
you
can
go
and
and
serialize
the
cloud
events
payloads
in
Avro
in
you
know
at
the
publisher
side
and
then,
as
you
receipt
be,
then
you
can
go
and
take
a
look
at
this.
K
You
may
write
this
URL
and
you
can
go
and
and
pull
this
out
serialization
and
validation
schemas.
The
question
gets
both
I
think.
Think
of
that
as
a
it's,
ultimately,
a
text
cloud
store
that
then
might
be
a
little
smarter
about
the
might
then
be
a
little
smarter
about
you
know,
upgrade
ability
and
compatibility,
etc,
etc
might
have
some
logic
to
it.
K
But
ultimately,
I
think
the
the
minimal
thing
is
a
simple
REST
API
that
allows
you
to
store
an
avro
schema
and
then
reference
in
our
schema
and
have
a
mechanism
for
how
you
can
go
and
create
a
URL
which
create
which
probably
has
an
access,
token
and
etc.
So
nothing,
nothing
complicated,
but
something
that
we
can
all
agree
on
and
that
we
can
all
implement
and
that
then
it
gives
a
common
way
to
to
handle
those.
Those
sterilization
and
validation,
schemas.
K
C
There
are
a
couple
hands
up,
I
think,
most
at
first
so
quick
clarifying
questions.
It
sounded
like
you
were
talking
about
at
least
the
finance
of
servers
vacation,
but
it
wasn't
clear
to
me
whether
you're
also
looking
for
this
organization
over
the
scenes.
You
have
to
also
host
a
central
schema
registry.
No.
K
I
think
of
that,
as
a
software
component,
that
we
all
wear,
we
define
the
interface
okay
and
then
the
schema
registry
is
something
that
is
so
specific
to
particular
applications.
Don't
think
this
is
something
where
you
need
to
have
a
grandson
grow
posit
ory.
If
someone
wants
to
build
one,
that's
great
and
if
that
here's
some
the
same
the
same
interface
even
better,
but
I.
Think
of
this,
mostly
as
a
drop
effort.
G
Think
it's
a
I
think
this
is
a
natural
topic
for
us
to
cover,
even
if
it
doesn't
turn
into
anything,
I
think
it's
something
that
everyone
that
I've
talked
to
you,
that
it's
doing
something
similar
has
to
do
anyway,
so
we
might
as
well
might
as
well
cover
it
I
guess,
but
one
question
that
I
have
is
like
how
specific
or
generic
are
you.
Thinking
of
being
you
mentioned
Avro
but
like
are
we
are
you
thinking
that
this
should
be
generic
and
supportive
of
any
kind
of
schema
technology?
K
Think
the
schema
registry
needs
to
have
a
notion
of
the
type
of
schema,
but
that's
really
but
then
otherwise,
it's
mostly
just
files,
and
so
you
can
so
you
would.
You
would
store
a
schema.
You
would
say
this
is
Babur
schema
and
then
you
would
store
the
amur
schema
with
it
and
you
should
probably
be
able
to
go
and
search
for
schemas
that
are
adversity
month.
So
I
have
some
level
of
the
discoverability,
but
otherwise
it's
you
know.
Schemas
in
general
are
typically
text
files
that
adhere
to
some
common.
K
You
know,
metaschema
I
should
say,
and
so
there
might
be
a
facility
that
makes
sure
that
if
you're
submitting
an
adverse,
you
know
that
the
schema
is
actually
a
valid,
our
schema
and
there
might
be.
If
you
have
JSON
schema,
then
it
might
go
and
check
that
is
Jason
schema
and
there
should
be
a
extensibility
that
the
implementation
and
implementation
of
that
same
interface
can
also
accommodate
any
other
schemas
that
you
might
want.
K
So
it's
really
about
you
know
creating
a
common
interface
that
that
all
serialization
libraries
and
validation
libraries
can
can
rely
on
because,
ultimately,
what
ultimately
for
cloud
events,
the
way
how
this
is
all
shaping
off
is
we
have
a
multitude
of
different
products
which
are
going
to
support
cloud
events
through
a
multitude
of
different
transports
and
we
will
have
a
way
to
push
into
a
network
of
you
know
connected
transports.
Well,
you
push
it
event
on
one
side
and
then
you
get
the
event
on
the
other
side.
K
You
know
what
is
is
doing
the
publishing
in
c-sharp,
the
other
one
is
getting
the
event
out
and
go,
and
there
should
be
a
common
way
for
how
libraries
can
obtain
and
decode
the
schema
right.
It
needs
to
be,
and
it
might
be
that
the
the
way
how
you
get
the
schema
is
simply
an
HTP
yet
and
that's
probably
okay,
but
since
there
is
no
common
there's,
no
definition
for
how
that's
working
I
think
we
need
to
go
and
create
one
so
I'm
not
looking
for
anything,
that's
enormously
complicated
but
I'm.
C
So,
since
no
one
hands
up
a
lot,
the
question
I
guess:
that's
the
one
thing
I'm
a
little
confused
about
if,
in
the
end,
there's
a
schema,
URL
or
URI
somewhere
in
in
the
cloud
event
that
you
got
and
you
just
need
to
be
get
on
that
you
or
whatever
transport
is
specified
in
the
URL
for
the
protocol.
Why
do
we
need
to
actually
have
a
spec
for
the
users
side
of
it,
or
do
we
even
need
a
spec
for
that.
C
Now
I
understand
you
may
need
one
from
the
producers
from
the
from
the
schema
owners
point
of
view.
Yes,
that
I
understand,
but
from
the
users
side
of
it
or
the
person
pulling
the
schema
down
just
to
do
validation.
Do
we
actually
need
a
spec
for
that
or
as
as
simple
as
just
yeah
a
URL
do
any
should
be
get
on
it
and
you
would
still
I
think.
K
K
G
Know
I
was
just
gonna,
I
was
gonna,
say,
that's
echo,
that's
one
of
the
things
I
felt
was
somewhat
hand-wavy
about
the
proper
cloud
of
it.
Spec
in
in
that
there's
a
URL,
but
there's
no
way
to
there's.
At
least
it's
not
specified
how
you
interpret
what
gets
returned,
I
think
Clemons.
It's
one
of
the
things
that
you're
getting
at
here.
K
Nothing,
this
is
the
sting
and
the
reason
why
I
think
it's
distinct
is
because
that
registry,
so
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
sure.
Even
when
that's
been
well,
that's
a
cloud
events
that
we
should
constrain
this
cloud
events
per
se
but
I
think
that's
something
that
might
be
useful
for
several
lists.
I
think
it
belongs
in
our
group,
but
it
might
be
something
that
can
can
stand
in
parallel
to
cloud
events,
but
it's
useful
for
cloud.
Let's
put
it
this
way.
K
K
This
keep
a
registry
that
we
see
customers
coming
to
us
with,
so
there
are
comments.
There
are
several
schema
registries
that
are
out
there
right
and
all
of
them
are
doing
similar
things,
but
they're
all
proprietary
and
proprietary,
meaning
they
are
not
under
a
an
open-source
license
of
the
sort
that
he
can
go
and
use
them.
As
you
please,
for
instance,
one
of
the
one
of
the
schema
schema
registries
that
is
popular.
K
There
is
no
standard
interface,
no
common
interface,
that
anybody
could
go
on,
implement
that
that
civilization,
libraries
or
that
you
know,
validation,
libraries,
could
go
in
adhere
to
from
a
client
side
to
speak,
to
a
common
provider
and,
and
so,
and
that
sort
of
Milwaukee
for
me
is
unacceptable
and
there
are
no.
There
is
no
library
out
there
in
any
of
the
in
any
of
the
know,
simple
enough.
A
A
C
Okay,
it
seems
to
me
that,
from
a
just
a
process
perspective,
one
thing
that
might
be
useful
is
if,
for
you
to
write
up
an
issue
clemens
just
describing
what
you
want
to
do
so
the
people
who
could
not
make
the
phone
call
could
read
it
comment
on
it
stuff
like
that,
and
if
there
is
enough
interest
to
make
it
another
sub
project,
then,
and
people
agree
that
it
falls
within
our
domain.
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
us,
starting
that
and
and
doing
it
as
another.
C
K
You
know
as
we're
adding
cloud
events
and
customers
are
using
more
and
more
binary,
encoding
is
etc.
So
that's
something
that
becomes
that
becomes
a
fairly
pressing
thing
and
and
we're
work
we
will.
We
will,
in
the
not-too-distant
future,
have
some
kind
of
schema
registry
functionality
and
before
that
gets
to
we're
happy
to
make
changes
early.
K
It's
just
that
as
if
we're
shipping
for
a
very
long
time
that
obviously
more
and
more
applications
get
bolted
to
whatever
proprietary
usually
came
up
with,
and
so
I
would
like
to
avoid
having
having
prepared
to
a
proprietary
approach
for
too
long,
but
I
would
rather
want
to
go
ahead
and
say
you
know.
This
is
difficult
preview
and
I'd
rather
get
to
a
harmonized
solution.
Early
and
probably
even
before
we
go
da.
C
H
Yes,
there's
one
that
is
weird
overview
with
the
sea
captain
liver
yesterday
from
the
service
workflow
subgroup
and
we
were
asked-
and
we
already
had
those
other
projects
on
our
related
projects
list
to
reach
out
to
our
NGO
and
tacked
on
now.
I
did
that
and
I
think
Alex
Collins
from
Argo.
He
seemed
to
be
really
interested
in
an
exchange,
how
they
define
their
workflows
and
from
that
gun.
I
don't
have
a
response
yet,
but
the
question
now
is:
if
these
readouts
about
how
they
define
their
service
orchestrating
workflows
happens
with
us.
C
C
H
Sure
I
just
thought
this
is
a
broader
audience
and
if
you
guys
are
interested,
we
could
have
it
in
the
weekly
service.
I
know
this
is
a
fixed
date
on
the
calendar,
whereas
ours
is
Monday
every
four
weeks,
so
might
not
be
a
good
time
for
everybody
to
join
I
just
wanted
to
ask
and
I'm
good
with
also
these
are
weekly
and
we
have
our
next
community
meeting
in
May.
So
right,
yeah.
C
C
F
C
C
H
M
J
E
Think
the
the
rule
of
thumb
should
be
if
you're
gonna
do
demos
on
K
native
and/or
kubernetes,
you
don't
run
it
from
your
laptop
while
you're
presenting
from
your
laptop
yeah
so
use
a
cloud
makes
everything
better
yeah.
Alright,
it
was
interesting.
Alright
I
assume
they
recorded
it
right.
Yeah,
yeah,
they're,
gonna,
they're
gonna
try
to
do
like
a
more
streamlined
demo
to
lase
into
the
presentation
that
you
sending
YouTube
all.
C
I
I
I
C
Know
trying
to
think,
obviously,
if
you
want
to
do
another
blog
post
type
thing
like
this
I
think
just
submit
a
poor
request
to
the
to
the
website.
Repo
other
types
of
promotions,
I'm,
not
sure
if
we
have
anything
else
other
than
this,
but
obviously
we
can
for
the
Twitter
from
the
cloud
events
Twitter
account.
We
can
blog
if
you,
if
you
do
I'm
sorry
tweet
about
it.
If
you
do
a
blog
with
a
pointer
to
it,.
I
C
Know
I
think
I
think
you
can
do
a
poor
request
and
to
get
it
at
it
to
here.
I,
don't
think
that's
a
problem
is
I.
Don't
think
anybody
would
have
a.
We
have
a
concern
with
that,
because
obviously
SDKs
are
part
of
our
organization,
so
it
makes
perfect
sense
to
do
it
here.
If
you
just
submit
a
pull
request
to
the
repo
I
think
that
should
be
all
that's
needed.
Okay,
anybody
have
any
objections
ever
I.
Think.
I
C
C
I'll
reach
out
to
my
camera,
the
gentleman's
name
who
did
the
last
revamp
of
our
website.
I
can't
imagine
that'd
be
very
difficult
to
do
I'll
reach
out
to
him
and
see
if
he
can
hold
that
together.
Unless
someone
else
understands
the
framework
that
the
website
uses
I
just
don't
know
it
myself,
I
think.
C
E
C
C
A
C
A
They're,
the
other
side
of
this
is
understanding
how
we
get
content
out
onto
the
Twitter
account
as
well,
because
I
think
right
now.
It's
just
dug
in
myself
that
can
tweet
out
about
things,
and
we
need
a
more
formal
process
to
make
sure
that
we
can
get
things
out
on
on
the
timely
basis,
with
the
right
content
would.
C
C
E
Job
either
yeah
I
think
what
the
pros
do
is
they
set
up
like
a
backlog
of
content
that
goes
out
on
a
schedule
and
you
just
add
to
the
backlog,
and
it
goes
out
so
there's
like
constant
engagement
in
it.
It
appears
that
your
brand
is
actually
thriving,
but
it's
every
you
know
some
prime
number
of
hours.
C
Every
type
that
I
focus
on
issues
is
because
that
tends
to
be
something
that
will
nag
me
right
or
an
email
from
somebody
will
nag
me
because
it's
it's
my
to
my
to-do
list,
then
I
don't
want
people
to
feel
like.
Oh
the
only
way
to
get
something
out,
there
is
to
know
about
some
secret
process
and
some
secret
person
to
ping
or
as
if
it's
an
issue,
then
we
could
say
open
it
up
here
and
the
owners
of
this
repo
are
responsible
for
watching
it.
Maybe.
C
I
I
I
So
I'm
continuing
to
do
a
progress
on
or
working
SDK
Java,
but
to
be
frank,
I'm,
mostly
rewriting
the
SDK
in
one
PR
and
I,
don't
like
it
I
mean
you
know:
I
mean
the
promise
that
I
open
at
the
under
of
ace,
that's
the
way
to
say
in
English
anyway,
I
changed
it.
A
couple
of
bits
and
I
ended
up
changing
everything,
so
I
would
love
to
be
more
incremental
on
this
change.
I
know
that
Fabio
also
gave
me
some
tips,
but
I
mean
nothing
more
than
this
I'm
sure.
I
L
C
I
C
C
E
E
I
E
E
It's
not
like
you
can
set
up
the
like
the
base
event
and
then
build
more
off
of
that,
like
a
builder
might
or
like
a
factory.
Might
so
I
think
the
Builder
ultimately
is
fairly
awkward,
because
it's
it's
very
static
and
not
really
adjustable,
and
then
the
wire
earthing
is
really
difficult
to
use
with
a
spring.
This
is
the
spring
framework
because
it
has
to
be
in
spring
responses
to
actually
send
the
entity
out.
E
I
I
J
E
Mean
back
that
I
have
to
get
the
request
body
as
a
string
if
you
scroll
down
a
few
lines
and
then
slam
that
into
this
unmarshal
ER,
but
I
have
to
know
that
I'm,
gonna,
unmarshal
binary
doesn't
really
work
and
that's
kind
of
like
counter
to
everything.
We've
been
trying
to
do
with
the
go
SDK
where
you
take.
You
take
an
active
request
and
you
turn
it
into
an
event
you,
but
for
for
Java
in
this
implementation.
You
have
to
know
ahead
of
time
that,
like
I'm
gonna
try
to
do
binary
on
marshalling
and
you'll.
E
Which
are
things
that
are
supposed
to
be
inside
the
request
in
the
body,
so
I
would
rather
see
a
cloud
events
on
Marshall
are
that
you
give
the
the
HTTP
headers
and
body,
and
you
get
back
a
cloud
event.
That's
parsed
based
on.
What's
there
not
what
you
know
ahead
of
time,
make
sense
so
I
think
yeah,
there's
there's
a
lot
of
usability
things
that
aren't
really
how
I
you
would
use
Java.
C
I
I
I
can
do
it
and
III
I
think
I
think
what
I'm
going
to
do
now
to
merge.
This
one
is
first
to
make
the
core
module
working
and
I
disabled
from
the
compilation,
the
other
modules,
because
none
of
the
other
modules
will
work
and
then
I
would
slowly
incrementally
enabled
the
other
modules
and
we
can
also
start
putting
new
stuff
like
like
the
one
you
said,
Scott
about
annotations
frankly
and
the
Chuck
service
Marshall
Marshall,
oh
yeah,.
E
It's
the
spring
team
is
currently
working
on
like
official
spring
bindings
for
cloud
events,
but
they
weren't,
like
I,
pointed
them
at
the
Java
SDK
to
help
kind
of
decode
stuff,
but
they
looked
at
it
and
it's
it's
not
enough.
A
way
that
they
can
actually
leverage
to
use
in.
You
know
a
common
way,
because
it's
just
too
much
work,
I
think.
I
E
E
I
I
M
C
C
E
E
E
I
E
Sorry
in
kind
we
run
kind
on
the
github
action
and
run
in
dentists.
That's
really
cool
of
containers!
Yeah,
it's
a
it's!
It's
all!
It's
all
sorts
of
fun
and
I
think
all
that
runs
in
Azure.
So
it's
it's
azure
containers,
running
kind,
docker,
container,
kubernetes
in
a
container
all
in
a
container.
It's
the
fact
that
it
works
is
insane.
It's
think
about.
Oh.
C
L
C
L
So,
along
those
lines
based
on
what
we
were
talking
about
two
weeks
ago,
made
a
PR
to
switch
the
Python
SDK
from
circle
CI
to
github
actions
and
since
I'm,
not
a
collaborator.
I
didn't
actually
run
it
in
the
PR,
but
you
can
see
it
on
my
branch
that
runs
and
completes
also
added
support
for
Python
3
date
and
the
I
don't
know
about
for
the
other
SDKs,
but
for
the
Python
one
circle
CI
is
just
broken
like
it
I'm
not
really
sure
what
it's
missing,
but
it
doesn't
work
right
now.
C
E
C
L
Yep
I
agree,
and
actually
the
next
topic
I
want
to
talk
about
here
is
I
sorta
have
like
a
overarching
issue
in
that
repo
about
sort
of
the
same
thing,
we're
talking
about
the
Java
SDK,
we
just
said
I
think
it
needs
basically
a
complete
rework,
so
some
feedback
here
would
be
awesome.
I
wasn't
planning
on
making
a
PR
that
just
completely
redoes
it,
but
I
could
do
that
as
well.
I
E
I
L
G
L
L
A
C
N
Well,
I
wasn't
actually
planning
on
talking
about
anything
during
meeting
today,
but
some
of
the
conversation
has
brought
up
some
questions
that
I
have
about
the
JavaScript.
Sdk
I've
got
a
handful
of
PRS
that
are
outstanding
there,
and
some
of
them
are
big
and
I
want
to
I've
been
wanting
to
do
even
bigger
ones
and
I
guess
I'm
wondering
what
the
you
know.
N
Well,
a
couple
things
one
circle
see
I
was
mentioned
as
the
CI
tool
for
Python
javascript
is
using
Travis
and
then
you
know
I
guess:
there's
the
the
github
actions
is
the
direction
that
some
folks
are
wanting
to
move.
Is
there
number
one?
Is
there
a
standard
that
you
know
everything
should
be
using
and
number
two?
How
can
I
make
you
know,
get
just
a
little
more
traction
on
some
of
these
pull
requests
and
have
a
little
more
confidence
that
the
things
that
I'm
submitting
that
are
potentially
big
might
get
some
visibility.
N
That
I
could
totally
do
that.
I
maintain
plenty
of
repositories,
but
you
know
I've
never
even
really
had
a
conversation
with
Fabio
I'm
kind
of
new
to
the
organization
and
everything.
So
you
know
I
understand
if
that's
not
necessarily
right
out
of
the
box,
but
I
would
like
to
have
a
little
bit
more.
You
know
just
traction
on
some
of
the
stuff
that
that
we're
submitting
there.
C
It
seems
to
me
that,
for
some
of
these
things,
if
you
can
get
Fabio
to
at
least
comment
on
them,
I
think
that's
that's
a
step
in
the
right
direction
and
if
he
doesn't,
it
doesn't
seem
like
he's
busy
enough
to
to
review
them
properly
and
to
approve
them.
But
he
doesn't
seem
an
essay
to
be
against
the
direction
you
want
to
go.
I'm
inclined
to
do
the
same
thing
with
you
that
we
just
did
with
Dustin
and
say
you
know,
we
don't
want
to
block
things
and.
C
I
start
there
because,
like
I
said
in
the
past,
he
sometimes
gets
pulled
off
on
other
stuff,
but
usually,
if
you
ping
him,
he
will
usually
respond.
But
if
not,
you
know,
I
mean
just
get
the
bit
of
history.
Most
of
the
maintainer
zuv.
These
SDKs
were
made
maintained,
errs
because
they
were
there
when
the
project
got
started
and
I
said:
hey
I
want
to
work
on
this,
so
it's
not
like
they
had
to
meet
some
minimum
bar
other
than
to
raise
their
hand.