Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Should the Reply Object extend from the Operation Object? #1009

Closed
smoya opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Should the Reply Object extend from the Operation Object? #1009

smoya opened this issue Dec 19, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
❔ Question A question about the spec or processes stale

Comments

@smoya
Copy link
Member

smoya commented Dec 19, 2023

The purpose of this issue is to have a place where we discuss the possibility of treating the current Operation Reply Object as Operation Object.

This question has been raised at least twice:

Some caveats and doubts to consider if replies become operations:

  • What about the action field? Should become send or receive? Does it even make sense to have the action?
  • When using $ref to an operation in the reply operation field, is recursivity a concern?
  • Others? (expect to have more)

cc @KhudaDad414 @fmvilas @derberg @Tenischev @GreenRover

@smoya smoya added the ❔ Question A question about the spec or processes label Dec 19, 2023
@smoya
Copy link
Member Author

smoya commented Dec 19, 2023

@GreenRover Would you mind expanding info from your comment in #981 (comment) ? Specially around this sentence:

What i intended with the current solution is that you can generate code out of the spec that full fills the classic blocking request reply.

Thank you 🙏

@GreenRover
Copy link
Collaborator

With the current solution a code generator could create methods like: public Pong ping(Ping ping) ...

@Tenischev if there would be 2 operations for a RequestReply. Where is the need for the relation between them?

@Tenischev
Copy link
Member

@Tenischev if there would be 2 operations for a RequestReply. Where is the need for the relation between them?

You asking about code or spec?
If about the spec, for me the reply part of operation is greatly serve for a dynamic return address. Other users may see their benefits.
If about the code, well it's depends on how code is structured.

@Tenischev
Copy link
Member

Regarding the topic, I see a logical problem that action and channel fields which are required in Operation Object will be not required in child object (at least channel could be null).
In the same time, I think following properties would bring good for users

  • summary, description and externalDocs - it's always good if user have a place where document
  • security - maybe reply channel or address will require less permission (or another scope e.g. for oauth)
  • bindings - definitely yes, e.g. for Kafka it could define a "reply partition". Maybe should I open a separate issue to add bindings to the reply?
  • traits - why not

Copy link

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience ❤️

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale label Apr 18, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Aug 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
❔ Question A question about the spec or processes stale
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants