►
From YouTube: CNCF Serverless Workflow 2020-03-16
Description
CNCF Serverless Workflow 2020-03-16
A
A
A
A
Okay,
I
think,
if
I
like
who
wants
to
know
is
able
to
join,
he
will
to
so
and
hear
me
as
sincere
about
to
leave
early.
Let's,
let's
get
started
so
I
think
not
much
has
changed
on
the
document,
I'm,
afraid
and
I'm.
Sorry
for
that,
given
the
current
situation,
it's
a
there's,
a
lot
going
on
at
work
and
I
haven't
had
time
to
do
it.
The
document
but
I
noted
after
our
call
I
noted
down
a
few
things
in
the
section.
So
I
put
my
action
item.
A
So
we
had
one
question
by
Scott:
Nichols
was
asking
so
why
do
I
service?
What
is
the
workflow?
What
makes
it
service
and
I
I
really
wanted
to
touch
on
this
one,
because
I
had
a
few
doubts
myself
so
I
know
we
would
want
to
use
the
work
for
a
specification
language
to
orchestrate
service
functions,
for
example,
lambdas
or
so
for
this
micro
services.
A
C
C
What
we're
doing
the
wiki,
not
what
makes
it
several
is
well,
it
depends
what
this
serval
is.
It's
you
deploy.
You
know
micro
services
or
services
they're
loosely
coupled
they're,
driven
by
events,
so
we
have
event-driven
applications,
whether
they're,
and
that
is
kind
of
like
the
core
server
was
computing
by
itself.
C
Can
you
do
event-driven
applications
outside
of
a
cloud
environment?
Yes,
so
it
doesn't
make
it
any
different.
We
cannot
control
where,
or
services
are
deployed,
that
we're
orchestrating
or
how
they're
deployed
we're,
defining
a
way
to
work
with
orchestrate
did
their
invocation
now
functions
by
themselves
can
be
then
driven
or
applications
or
or
or
an
event
can
trigger
multiple
invocations
of
some
sort
of
services,
and
that's
exactly
what
we're
orchestrating
were
offloading.
A
C
You
can
manage
events
outside
of
service
and
that's
something
we've
been
doing.
For
example,
it
might
work
for
over
ten
years.
Events
can
be,
for
example,
anything
Kafka
events.
Anything
this
is
about
deployment
really,
and
what
makes
us
Services
is
more
than
just
what
it
does.
We
can
argue
that
Jason
and
Yama
formats
are
more
suited
for
servers,
but
then
again
you
see
events.
Si
P
is
starting
to
use,
be
p12
for
service
orchestration
and
be
payment
to
itself
is
absolutely
nothing
to
do
with.
Cyril
is
itself,
you
know.
C
Act
upon
events
and
simply
does
not
define,
for
example,
in
a
lot
of
work
for
engines.
You
define
a
lot
of
the
executions
and
we
don't.
We
basically
say
here
is
your
action.
Here
is
a
function
they
can
leave
anyway.
I
live
everywhere,
you
have
a
URL
to
it
and
that's
like
so
it's
a
little
different
approach
than
the
traditional
workflows.
So
how.
A
C
A
On
yeah,
that's
the
Amazon
resource
name
right,
and
so
this
is
it's
a
virtual
end
point:
it's
not
a
URL,
it's
not
a
location,
so
this
is
location,
transparent,
that's,
okay,
yet
we
are
still
so
we're
doing
or
will
what
it?
What
it
looks
like
is
a
synchronizing
location
or
maybe.
Okay,
if
synchronous
is
something
transport
and
process
specific.
Then
let's
say
this
is
it's
a
request
response
model?
C
D
A
C
A
C
Okay,
I
understand,
though,
the
way
we
kind
of
do
this.
We
said
from
the
beginning
that
the
use
of
workflows
in
service
computing
is
to
offload
our
orchestration
lodging
from
business
logic,
which
in
this
case
our
workflow
offloads
the
event,
collection
and
the
event
triggering
from
the
function
itself.
Where,
before
in
the
function,
you
had
to
define
your
trigger
events
and
then
what
happens
when
those
events
are
happened?
C
You
have
now
a
workflow
which
consumes
this
events
and
then
triggers
the
function
for
you,
the
functions
themselves
or
the
services.
Yes,
they
have
to
be
exposed
one
way
or
the
other
somehow,
and
that
is
typically
done
via
this
URL,
whether
it
be
an
rest,
endpoint
or
or
whatever
that
there
might
be,
or
some
identifier
that
is
in
the
system
known
to
be
associated
with
that
service
implication
yeah,
so
that
doesn't.
B
C
A
C
Of
course
you
could
yes,
there
has
to
be
some
service,
then
that
listens
to
a
Kafka,
endpoint
and
then,
whatever
event
type,
the
Kafka
event
is
and
converts
that
into
a
cloudy
event.
So
that
part
we're
not
concerned.
If
that
part
is
the
part
of
the
surrealist
provider
infrastructure
of
how
to
invoke
the
workflows
themselves,
we
don't.
A
C
A
Okay,
so
do
we
do
we
miss
something
in
the
how
an
actual
function
is
defined?
We
have
the
function
ref
and
we
have
two
functions.
Definition
at
the
beginning
of
the
workflow
spec
that
again,
that
doesn't
say
anything
about
the
transport
I'm
just
wondering
if
I
I
went
ahead
and
just
provided
a
workflow
engine,
somebody
has
lambdas
in
Amazon
and
has
edger
functions
a
cloud
one
whatever
there
is
a
way
of
how
these
would
these
service
functions
would
be
invoked,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
to
tell
the
engine.
A
C
And
then
the
way
you
can
implement
it
in
many
ways
you
can
define
the
resource
and
the
type
so,
for
example,
for
implementations,
we
provided
the
type
parameter
where
we
left
it
open-ended.
For
the
implementations
to
say.
Okay,
the
resource
resource
might
be
the
name
of
Kafka
topic
and
the
type
might
be
Kafka
for
one
function
for
another
function.
The
resource
might
be
a
URL
and
that
that
might
be
rest,
so
we're
kinda
open-ended
on
that
they
could
be
some
improvements,
but
I
think
it's
kind
of
like
it's.
A
D
D
What
we
could
say
as
a
smallest
common
denominator,
is
that
in
our
reown
a
function
invocation
is
something
identified
by
a
URI.
Maybe
even
if
it's
not
a
location,
but
just
the
name
is
you
or
I?
Maybe
the
you
know
some
identifier,
that's
what
we
have
there
and
it
from
our
perspective,
addresses
it
receives
and
returns
JSON,
whether
that
is
later
translated
to
something
else
might
be
implementation
specific,
but
from
our
language
to
protocol
data
model
we
speak
is
Jason
right.
A
D
But
in
order
to
define
the
niche
wish,
we
could
say
JSON
is
what
we
are
having
as
at
least
as
a
programming
model.
So
to
say:
if
people
implement
that
internally
in
some
different
way,
that's
fine
but
like
the
model
of
thinking
and
what
is
discussed
is
always
Jason
am
I
right
or
am
I
missing.
Something
she's
Jason
left
open
as
well.
Can
I
use
XML
with
this
language
as
well,
I.
A
A
Yes,
it
is
offloading
these
specifics
to
the
platform
that
implements
the
the
workflow
language
and
it's
also
open
to
the
platform,
how
it
then
implements
it
and
if
you
again
by
example
like
if
you
had
a
platform
that
only
deals
with
JavaScript
functions,
pulls
them
into
a
note
and
note
VM
and
execute
those.
It's
also
a
function
as
a
service
sort
of
you
can
build
workflows
for
that
or
you
could
have
the
K
native
services
being
invoked
with
SEO.
That
would
be
the
with
the
serving
component
of
Canada.
C
The
effort
for
like
a
zoological,
it
would
be,
for
example,
just
like
what
they
have
the
name
of
an
action
you
know,
so
it
would
be
just
a
string
so
depending
on
the
implementation
in
community,
but
wait
a
second
before
we
continue.
Can
I
ask
because
I
haven't
seen
Mona
around
yet.
Can
you
introduce
yourself
just
to
know
who
you
are
so
we
can
greet
you
properly?
Yes,.
B
My
background
was
mainly
in
the
atmosphere
but
since
2016
I'm
interested
in
containers
and
a
cloud
native
stuff
and
I
started
like
like
last
year
with
kubernetes
and
I'm
interested
in
getting
into
open
source,
because
it's
really
interesting
to
be
involved
with
in
the
community
and
that's
why
I'm
here
just
to
take
a
look
out
at
what's
going
on
especially
serverless
two
interests
me
the
most.
So
that's
why
I'm
here
today
welcome.
C
C
B
I
was
browsing,
github
actually
and
I
found
your
server
lists
working
group
because
I'm
really
so
interested
in
integrating
into
open
source
stuff
and
getting
involved
in
the
community.
So
so
I
found
the
working
group
and
I
found
the
Salang
to
do
two
meetings
and
stuff
so
I
just
subscribe
myself.
Oh
thank.
C
A
Yeah
also
welcome
for
me,
oh
I,
sorry
I,
thought
of
gettin
about
your
common
data
format,
comment
and
I.
Think
there's
something
to
it,
because
all
the
data
binding
is
possible
in
different
encodings.
Although
everything
is
possibly
matching
everything
else,
it's
good
to
have
a
key
format
from
which
to
everything
else
is
derived
and
really
aren't.
D
C
The
implementation
is
a
couple
of
things:
the
workflow
has
a
data
input
and,
yes,
it
is
Jason
Forum
it
currently
is
defined.
A
workflow
can
also
be
start
with
a
start
event
state.
We
are
events,
an
event
cloud
events
define
the
data
and
a
section
which
also
we
have
to
state
and
we
haven't
yet,
but
we
cannot
consume
every
type
of
data
from
the
cloud
events
and
that's
something
that
I've
been
trying
to
do
in
my
free
time,
because
cloud
events
format
defines
a
data
content
type
and
also
has
a
tool
context
parameters.
C
D
Okay,
so
that
sounds
like
we
are
defining
in
proper
niche
in
where
things
are
not
contradicting
themselves
yeah.
This
also
will
then
be
valid
for
function
invocations,
unless
we
would
have
a
function
invocation
where
we
could
then
have
a
cloud
event
as
input/output,
but
I
mean
that
would
again
require
Jason
as
a
data
format.
C
Yeah
we
can
say
Jason,
there
is
a
difference
between
now.
Of
course,
good
data
of
the
cloud
event
can
has
to
be
Jason
format,
but,
for
example,
it
can
have
a
parameter
that
has
a
binary
string
right.
So
we're
not
restricting
us
to
hundred
percent
pure
Jason,
we're
just
saying
the
context.
Type
of
the
data
format
of
the
cloudy
event
has
to
be
type
of
Jason
for
us
to
be
able
to
merge
it
with
the
state
data
or
the
workload
data
which
is
Jason
itself.
C
A
C
The
only
restriction
we
can
say
is
like
look.
The
the
data
format
of
the
internal
data
structure
of
our
workflow
definition
is
Jason,
so,
whatever
he
wants
to
be
consumed
as
far
as
merged
into
the
dead
of
the
state
that
I
input,
that
output
and
being
to
be
able
to
be
filtered,
has
to
conform
to
the
same
form
other
than
that
we
can
deal
with
it.
C
A
C
A
D
Success
in
having
real
interoperability
of
dmn
models,
because
we
do
have
a
standardized
expression,
language
and
maybe
some
things
are
still
missing
for
our
use
case.
Some
things
could
be
improved,
but
the
foundation
is
at
least
a
lot
better
than
this
blog
post
that
introduced
JSON
path
and
their
leaves
any
more
complex
operation
to
some
underlying
scripting,
which
it
is
not
close
to
specified.
A
A
D
I
mean
I'm
not
sure
if
that
what
if
there
was
any
experiment,
we
have
standardized
that,
but
in
its
current
form
I
think
it's
kind
of
any
implementation
is
somewhat
proprietary.
There
are
some
common
parts
that
you
can
probably
do
similar
and
you
know
every
implementation,
but
then
those
commons
parts
are
relatively
thin.
It's
mostly
a
regulating
data,
access
of
photo
excess
properties
and
to
is
a
path
magic,
but
you
know
sometimes
you
need
functions
in
order
to
work
on
more
complex
structures
like
lists
or
then
then
it
gets
tricky
well.
D
Point
right:
you
can
see
in
theory
you
can,
but
for
anything
more
complex
you
would
Jason
path.
Just
says
more
complex
functions
could
be
provided
by
some
other
scripting
language
that
this
the
implementation
is
based
on.
I
think
the
basic
implementation
is
the
the
basic
vision
of
Jason
pass
was
that
it
is
implemented
on
some
on
top
of
a
scripting
language
like,
for
example,
Java
is
good,
and
then
you
could
leverage
any
functions
that
your
scripting
language
provides.
D
But
I
guess
we
wouldn't
want
to
have
a
hard
binding
against
something
like
JavaScript,
even
though
it's
a
language
that
is
available
on
many
platforms.
It's
also
the
problem
is
that
it's
a
Turing,
complete
language
and
you
don't
want
to
have
full
programming
language
skills
inside
your
expression,
language,
yeah,
that's
what
the
services
and
the
functions
are
for.
D
E
A
C
A
A
Yeah-
maybe
let's
go
through
this
through
this
slowly
if
we
have
a
little
bit
more
time
so
for
the
workflow
concepts,
I
think
I,
I
I'm.
Okay,
with
saying
that,
would
you
agree
that
the
quintessence
of
what
we've
been
discussing
is
that
serverless
workflow
language
is
service
because
we
use
formats
and
we.
A
A
D
Yeah
I
also
have
a
feeling
that
some
stuff
is
still
like
fuzzy
there.
So
maybe,
in
summary,
one
could
argue
that
we
are
somehow
using
the
commonly
used
objects
of
serverless
frameworks,
and
this
for
somehow
seems
to
be
functions
that
are
identified
by
some
kind
of
name,
your
eye,
something
like
that.
I
guess
this
is
the
really
common
ground.
It's
just
a
string,
but
maybe
we
could
at
least
give
some
examples,
as
you
did
here
and
well
drilling
down
like
the
three
things,
as
probably
events,
functions
and
Jason
as
a
programming
model.
A
So
that
is
okay,
this
for
programming,
so
we're
at
least
in
the
same
declaration
language
space,
but
how
about
that
workflow
context
Zoo
by
context.
So
if
the
context
I
mean
yes,
a
JSON
data
structure
starts
the
workflow
execution
and
in
between
we're,
also
working
with
the
JSON
data
structure.
So
this
is
the
context
attribute.
A
I
think
yeah,
that's
okay
for
the
function
of
occasion.
I
just
leave
it
open.
If
anybody
has
any
ideas,
sorry
I
have
plenty
of
ideas
of
how
to
interpret
serverless
but
I.
Think
it's
not
the
roots
of
this.
So
you
could.
You
could
have
the
entire
workflow
execution
be
serviced,
but
the
language
makes
no
assumptions
about
that
right,
but
I
mean.
C
I,
don't
think
we
have
to
focus
on
this
world
servers.
Who
cares?
Nobody
else
does.
If
you
look
at
any
other
server
list,
quote-unquote
work
for
an
invitation
out
there.
Nobody
describes
why
it
just
is
even
like
I
said
I
said
earlier,
and
you
will
be
happy
about
that.
You
probably
know
I
say
P
now
uses
B
payment
too,
as
well.
What
service
about
that?
Nothing!
C
You
know
I
mean
and
as
far
as
us,
the
only
thing
we
have
to
describe
like
I
said
is
we're
orchestrating
an
event-driven
application
loosely
coupled
applications,
and
that's
only
matters
honestly.
Can
you
use
service
work
outside
of
service?
Yes,
of
course,
and
and
we
allow
for
other
state
other
than
event
states
to
be
starting
states
of
the
workflow.
So
you
can
use
our
definitions
to
describe
workforce.
C
They
don't
even
deal
with
the
event-driven
architecture,
so
we're
not
forced
our
name
is
because
what
we're
trying
to
do
with
this
specification
is
unify
workflows
that
are
running
in
several
its
orchestra,
the
model
of
running
currently,
sir
other
than
whether
there
be
whatever
they
might
be
so
we're
that's
kind
of
like
our
business,
our
businesses.
How
this
service
event
architectures
are
defined,
or
what
kind
of
services
to
provide
that
we
cannot
go
there.
You
know.
A
Processing
that
goes
on
elsewhere
and
then
is
somewhat
serverless
all
right,
so
I
wouldn't
create
a
work.
Severals
workflow
just
to
do
some
data
manipulation
without
any
invocation,
I
mean
I
could
do
it
without
invoking
any
extra
any
other
function,
but
I
think
the
core
of
this
is
to
to
orchestrate
these
decent
functions
right,
functional
vocations.
Would
you
agree.
C
Yeah,
defining
what
orchestration
is
would
be
also
a
nice
thing
to
have
basically
meaning-
and
that
goes
to
those
two.
Why
do
we
need
workers
in
the
first
place
and
the
main
reason
is
is
to
separate
right
and
that's
the
separation
of
business
logic,
which
are
functions
or
services
need
to
focus
on
versus
the
quote:
unquote
orchestration,
which
is
everything
else
which
is
control,
call
logic,
data
management,
event,
management,
execution,
semantics
or
execution
definitions,
so
we're
offloading.
C
You
can
write
all
this
stuff
without
work
loss,
you
know
and
the
people
have
been
doing
it.
So
why
do
we
care
about
work?
Those
is
because
of
that
separation
of
demands.
You
know
what
do
what
are
we
taking
care
of
instead
of
repeatable
reusable,
you
know
graphic
you
can
graph
the
the
structure
of
it.
Oh,
this
workflows
what
we
are
learning
from
actual
or
business
logic,
which
is
our
services.
They
need
to
focus
on
specific
things
and
their
business
oriented
only
the
the
actual
problem
of
our
business.
You
know
business
problem,
okay,.
C
A
Model
so
control
flow,
I
get
it
it's
our
state's
data
management,
not
so
sure
about
the
data
management
is
the
event
management
yeah,
defining
the
triggers
or
emitting
triggers
was
acute
semantics.
That's
adopting
data
management
is
what
goes
into
the
context
and
what
is
being
used
to
invoke
a
function
right
well,.
C
The
data
management
as
far
as
workload
orchestration
goes,
is
within
functions
when
you
write
your
single
function,
which
is
supposed
to
target
solving
a
single
business
requirement
right,
if
without
data
management,
you
have
to
know
that
there
are
inputs
that
there
are
outputs
everything
from
all
the
other
services
that
might
be
triggering
after
or
there
might
be.
You
have
to
know
all
of
that
in
order
to
solve
some
sort
of
particular
business
problem,
workflow
off
load
off
of
that.
C
What
in
workflows
you
define
the
parameters
to
your
functions
and
in
workflows
define
how
the
results
of
this
particular
functions
are
being
handled
as
well
right.
So,
as
far
as
then,
your
function
coding
goes
in
your
service.
You
don't
have
to
worry
about
any
of
that.
You
just
have
to
focus
on
what
data
do
you
need
and
what
you
need
to
do
with
that
data
right
and
you
don't
have
to
worry
about
the
big
picture
which
is
offloaded.
C
A
Think
that's
something
we
can
explain.
The
function
orchestration
that
is
addressed
by
several
is
workflow
language
and
yeah.
They're
portability,
I,
actually,
I,
don't
want
to
go
down
this
right
now,
I
just
copy
and
paste
it,
because
it's
one
of
the
goals,
since
the
workflow
specification
doesn't
make
a
lot
of
assumptions
on
the
employ
implementation
of
functions
or
the
engine
I
think
it's
really
hard
to
state
portability.
C
A
Good
question
this
facilitated
surveillance,
workflow
portability,
is
one
of
the
goals
of
the
service.
Workflow
specification
language
right.
So
it's
to
make
the
workflow
description
portable
between
engines
that
one
engine
could
be
entirely
designed
to
invoke
AR
ends
and
the
other
engine
could
be
entirely
designed
to
communicate
with
native
services.
So
kafka
topics.
A
C
I
mean
we're
only
looking
at
portability
on
the
on
the
model
level,
and
you
know
there's
going
to
be
no
matter
what
there's
going
to
be
differences
in
implementations.
But
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
to
minimize
those
right.
What
you're
talking
about
I,
don't
think.
That's
something
feasible
in
a
real
world
to
do,
because
if
I
pour
it,
my
service
work
flows
from
AWS
to
Microsoft,
right
I'm
gonna
have
to
change
things,
but
the
difference
is
this:
changing
these
strings
rather
than
having
to
change
my
whole
work.
C
E
D
Stage
we
could
say
portability
to
the
extent
possible
for
the
orchestration
part
limitations,
known
limitations
currently
and
with
what
we
have
right
now
is
the
expression
language
and
the
concrete
function
binding,
where
our
vendors
will
have
to
extend
the
language
to
get
something
working.
If
we
fix
the
expression
language,
we
could
get
to
a
stage
where,
if
you
have
functions
of
the
same
signatures,
you
could,
in
theory,
take
a
model
and
run
it
on
a
different
platform.
Giving
you
provide
those
same
functions
with
you
know
same
signatures.
D
A
If
you
have
an
event
type
I
think
there
is
a
known
format:
I
I,
don't
know
if
they
specify
if
they
allow
for
specifications
of
the
content,
except
for
the
encoding,
so
that,
along
with
the
event
registry,
that
you
would
also
register
which
fields
of
the
event
are
mandatory
or
optional,
I
think
in
the
in
the
body
of
the
event.
I,
don't
think
this
currently
happening,
but
I'm
not
sure
so.
Registration
is
something
ongoing
in
the
cloud
events,
crew.
A
Okay,
I
think
that's
okay,
for
them
to
explain
these
two
goals.
What
is
meant
and
actually
what
is
not
meant
so
not
touching-
on
function,
bindings
and
leaving
the
expression
language
open
for
now,
although
this
is
more
of
a
commenting
right,
because
this
is
working
progress,
it's
not
it's.
Neither
a
girl
nor
an
on
goal
to
define
in
a
common
expression,
language
or
it's
just
we
haven't
decided
on
this,
but
it
seems
for
the
function
bindings
at
least
for
now.
This
is
because
it
was
also
in
the
original
design
document.
A
D
Make
that
clear
here
that
expression
language
could
be
something
that
is
scoped
smaller
function
bindings.
We
all
seem
to
agree
that
this
is
something
that
needs
to
be
left
open
for
vendor
extensions,
yeah
and
both
to
the
expression
language,
their
pros
and
cons.
On
the
one
hand,
we
are
narrowing
the
the
possible
applications,
but
we
would
also
increase
portability,
and
that
was
a
similar
discussion
in
DM
n
as
well,
while
the
specification
leaves
it
open.
Most
vendors
then
settled
on
fear
as
an
expression.
D
Language
think
we
had
come
on
now
were
one
of
the
only
ones
that
supported
a
whole
portfolio
of
different
expression
and
scripting
languages,
and
but
we're
slowly
also
circling
in
on
fear,
because
it
gives
us
this
fixed
expression,
language
to
work
with,
but
yeah
different
discussion.
Oh
yeah,
maybe
we
should
put
the
item
here
or
at
table
of
contents
item
on
the
expression,
language
discussion.
A
A
You
rather
see
this
because
this
I
think
is
the
concepts
and
to
me
it
the
expression,
language
discussion,
giving
specific
examples,
naming
existing
languages
and
so
on
something
more
of
the
the
actual
realization,
so
something
in
the
specification
design,
and
so
this
may
be
specifically
designed.
Should
we
have
an
expression
language
sub
point
here:
mm-hmm.
A
C
Yeah
we
gotta
see
this
field.
I
wouldn't
put
any
specific
name
of
any
expression
language
down
now,
because
we
still
have
to
evaluate
what
we
can
use
this
feel
or
not.
It
has
a
lot
of
restrictions
compared
to
some
other
ones
out
there,
but
I
would
definitely
say
a
single
expression.
Language,
of
course,
is
to
enforce
like
portability.
B
D
To
express
to
that,
you
see
that
we
are
not
why
blind
on
this
topic,
but
we
have
had
some
initial
research
of
what
the
word
looks
like
I,
like
this
term,
that
you
that
you
said
the
other
day
manual
that
we
are
like
measuring
the
world,
or
you
know
that
the
cloud
defense
team
measured
the
world
before
they
started
their
specification
and
I
would
assume
if
the
toc
wants
is
to
adopt
this,
that
they
want
us
to
have
a
certain
measurement
of
the
world
donors,
as
well.
I
said.
A
We
need
to
show
a
little
bit
of
activism.
We
can
make
measure
the
world
actually,
but
since
we
got
that
comment
that
we
should
also
cover
Tecton
and
because
we
are
all
related
from
AWS
lambda,
this
is
a
Netflix
conductor.
I
think
you
may
use
suggested
we
cover
this.
This
is
just
we
need
to
show
something.
I,
think
the
primer
shouldn't
be
all
self
concerned
and
should
make
these
connections
to
different
projects
and
specifications
right.
So
that's
yeah,
somebody,
okay!
A
A
Maybe
we
can
leave
it
for
next
time,
because
we
only
have
seven
minutes
and
maybe
we
can
wrap
up,
but
let's
give
it
a
try.
So
stay
four
versus
stateless
to
me
is
I'm
not
making
any
sense,
because
the
workflow
has
stayed
and
it's
passed
between
the
what
we
call
States
to
make
it
so
every
workflow
you'd,
probably
call
it
workflow.
Data
to
me
is
state
of
the
workflow.
A
How
would
we
support
stateless
service
work
through
implementations?
Does
it
mean
that
III
wouldn't
even
know
how
the
specification,
if
I
support
something
stateless,
then
maybe
I
make
the
persistency
of
the
state
transparent
so
that
the
the
system
takes
just
care
of
it?
But
this
is
a
system
design
implementation
aspect,
so
this
is
not
something
that's
specific.
You
can
ensure
this
is.
This
is
where
we
differ.
C
So
from
AWS
in
a
big
way,
okay,
the
Amazon
state
language
is
a
stateless
language.
What
does
it
mean?
It
doesn't
provide
any
means
for
scaling
and
scaling
to
zero,
especially
just
by
us
using
cloud
events
and
using
a
correlation
token
allows
us
to
scale
to
zero,
okay
and
restart
the
workflow,
for
example,
when
an
events
actually
arrived
or
defense
that
we
define
in
our
event
states.
For
example,
it's
a
starting
state
to
even
start
the
work,
for
instance
right.
C
Well,
we're
talking
the
whole
thing
we're
talking
about
is
just
a
model
right.
Our
model
allows
for
stateful
orchestration
because
we
define
a
model
through
which
users
can
model
stateful,
workflows,
execution
right.
If
we
use
just
the
Amazon
state
language,
there
is
no
way
to
even
model
something
like
what
we
can,
because
there
is
no
event-driven
State
in
the
Amazon
state
language,
so
just
by
the
means
of
our
workflow
definition
being
able
to
use
an
event
state
or
this
callback
state
or
whatever
in
the
other
states
that
we
have
or
not.
We
support
both.
C
E
C
C
C
A
D
D
Continuation
yeah,
but
it
I
think
the
borderline
is
really
asynchronous.
Communication
like
the
language
can
has
elements
that
can
wait
for
an
asynchronous
response
or
an
asynchronous
event
to
come
back,
and
that
could
be
of
course,
cloud
events,
topics,
but
I
don't
know.
Do
we
allow
something
I
mean
we
have
that
callback
state
now
right.
So
that
could
be
an
argument
here,
not
sure
if
a
normal
function
invocation
qualifies
as
that.
D
D
Would
then
be
a
work
for
that?
Just
limits
itself
to
certain
elements
that
are
basically
just
sent
synchronous
function
calls
you
could
potentially
have
something
like
an
initial
event
that
kicks
off
the
workflow,
but
from
then
on,
you
can't
wait.
You
just
straight
through
process.
Everything
in
one
go
yeah.
D
What's
the
funny
thing
about
that,
and
that
is
why
many
people
always
need
a
forward
flow.
This
whatever
function,
fails
and
what,
if
you
want
to
have
things
like
retrying
or
stopping
the
workflow
right
there
and
continue
later
once
you
fix
the
problem.
So
the
saga
pattern
comes
into
play
here
and
then
obviously
things
like
compensation.
What,
if
you
really.
A
A
A
D
A
C
C
Until
recently,
CFCF
has
these
cigs
specialty
interest
groups
right,
which
every
proposal
has
to
fall
under
the
problem
with
us,
is
that
there
is
no
surrealist
group
and
when
cloudy
events
was
made
actually
proposed
to
sandbox,
there
was
no
SIG's,
so
they
just
kind
of
reviewed
it
themselves.
But
right
now
there
is
some
sort
of
discussion.
Whether
servers
should
be
a
cig
on
its
own
or
not.
That
doesn't
want
to
do
it
because
it's
extra
work,
bla,
bla,
bla,
I,
thought.
D
C
A
D
C
Has
raised
his
hand
to
sponsor
this
specification,
what
is
a
sponsor?
Do?
Which
means
absolutely
nothing,
so
they
just
say
they
support
it,
and
we
need
support
from
two
more
we'll
figure
out
how
to
get,
and
then
we
will
have
to
present
this
somehow
to
the
TOC
for
some
sort
of
review
and
I.
Don't
know
when
that's
gonna
happen
as
soon
as
I
know,
you
will
know
as
well,
so
it's
moving
forward
and
we're
making
some
noise
we're
making
actually
a
lot
of
noise
and,
let's
keep
making
noise.
C
A
C
D
B
A
We
so
I'm
not
sure
how
far
you
up-to-date
with
what
we're
actually
doing
here.
So
we
are
trying
to
write
on
this
call
was
specifically
about
a
primer.
There
is
also
a
monthly
service,
workflow
working
group
meeting,
that
is
every
first
Monday
of
the
month.
We
have
I
think
there
is
a
standing,
invite
you
would
find
it
on
the
email
archive
of
the
CF
service
list.
There
is
also
a
document
link
to
our
workflow
meeting.
Minutes
next
event
will
be
on
April,
the
6th
and
just
now
I.
B
A
Should
yeah
give
an
overview
of
the
specification
without
going
into
the
normative
references
of
everything,
so
next
week,
I'm
a
little
bit
more
flexible
or
less
flexible,
considering
that
the
kids
are
at
home,
schools
are
closed.
Everything
is
going
to
be
in
lockdown
soon
suspect.
So
what
about
time?
Next
week,
any
preferences.
C
C
To
say,
there's
still
an
open
pair
to
add
finally
I
think
that's
very
important.
Another
question
for
Falco,
maybe
offline
but
I,
don't
see
Sal
Mauricio,
maybe
he's
on
vacation,
but
maybe
he
is
looking
into
other
adventures
now
so
do
you
want
to
be
replaced
as
an
owner
from
come
on
des
I?
Don't
know
you
can
just
let
me
know
we're
flexible,
but
we
need
more
owners.
We
need
more
contributors,
so
we
need
more
people
to
just
look
and
tell
us
so
crazy.
We're
and
that's
it
I
mean
without
that
I.
C
D
C
Yeah
I
mean
that
would
be
nice,
of
course,
but
yeah
right
now.
What
we
need
is
is
the
exactly
exact
problem
is
that
we
have
some
rules
and
regulation
the
stupid
governance
document.
We
have
nobody
to
enforce
it.
So
if
you
guys
are
looking
into
things
like
you,
no
longer
pull
request,
reviews
reviews
only
meetings,
the
stuff
that
you
know,
other
specifications
might
be
doing.
We
gotta
get
there
how
we
and
for
that
you
know
we
got
to
change
our
structure
and
position
ourselves.
The
way
that
we
also
look
as
a
you
know.
A
B
A
Casey
yeah
that
would
be
7:00
a.m.
I,
don't
know
if
they
start
working
that
early
in
San
Francisco,
but
at
least
we
could
schedule
our
next
call
at
that
time.
So
there
would
be
next
Monday
23rd
I'll
send
out,
invites
Sui
p.m.
Germany
10:00
a.m.
Atlanta
time
and
the
week
after
we
anyways
no
I
said
yeah
the
week
after
we
have
a
regular
one.
Oh
no,
no
there's
one
more
Monday
in
in
March!
Sorry,
sorry
about
that!
Ok
and
okay!
Last
last
thing:
everybody
I
think
we
we
can
meet
next
week.
A
A
A
Was
there
and
there
was
an
agenda
item-
that
she
would
give
a
readout
from
the
work
flow
subgroup,
which
is
a
standing
item
by
the
way
so
I
think
if
to
give
a
readout
to
the
service
working
group?
Maybe
we
should
join
and
yeah
I
missed
it.
So
I
was
just
wondering
what
case
he
had
to
say
about
what
we
had
doing.
I
think
I
had
an
item
on
my
to-do.