feat: add avro-turbo format
#1197
Conversation
|
I’ve raised this PR as a modification to the Avro format so it is clear how it is different. Not mergable in current state |
|
Did we want to rename the existing one or create an alternative? |
|
Looks like the errors are real: https://github.com/cloudevents/spec/actions/runs/4824766723/jobs/8672389773?pr=1197 |
|
We want to create an alternative. I just did it like this so you can see the differences. |
|
@alexec if you recreate the original file, add the new one to the README and address the comment above I think we should be able to get this one in on tomorrow's ca.. |
done |
|
Link checker: I think you can just create those 2 files and copy in the content from this file: |
|
One thing that's missing from this and the existing Avro format spec is the statement about the media-type to use for structured-mode. My assumption is that that application/cloudevents+avro is used for the existing format spec, do we need a different media-type for turbo mode ? |
|
I haven't looked at this yet, and won't have time before the meeting, but will do so tomorrow or next week. Prepare for nitpicking :) |
|
I'm planning on reviewing this, but it's likely to be tomorrow - today I really want to create the issue around formats and data, and that'll take quite a lot of my time. |
|
@jskeet most of this doc is copied from the original and updated. Whenever you suggest a change, in many cases it must mean you want the original changed too. But that can’t be true, because if that was needed you would commented on the original. Please advise. |
I've never gone through the original carefully, as it was already in place when I became interested in CloudEvents, and hasn't come up much in discussions. There may well be many things I'd have raised before it was approved, but which can't be changed now - but which can be fixed in this new format. |
|
rebase on SDK.md is needed |
Would you like to suggest changes by way of Github suggestions or a pull request? Do you want to do that to the original version? To be frank, I don’t really want to fix these issues because I want to move on so writing the Java SDK, and so I don’t want to spend another three weeks on rewriting this pull request. |
I don't have time to do that at the moment, I'm afraid.
No, because the original format has already been approved and implemented - a lot of the changes I'm suggesting here can't be retrofitted because they'd be breaking changes. (Some changes to wording could be, but I don't have time to go through it right now.)
I would hope that the issues I've raised wouldn't actually take that long - and I'd also hope that fixing them now would save time in the long run. |
|
@alexec let me know when you think this one is ready (all comments have been addressed) and then we can add it to the agenda for a vote. |
|
@alexec rebase needed. Did you want to get this one in soon? |
|
Had to create new PR due to Git-spolsion. |
Fixes #1187