Adam C. Foltzer

I'm in favor of this; it'd make testing of functions that otherwise accept "production" types much more straighforward. With the addition of the default, would this be a breaking change?

Aha, that makes sense. I'm fine with putting this on ice then or changing the base revision to #101 if that's the best way to start accumulating breaking changes?

@Mossaka do you imagine there being a difference to the contents of `stateful-proxy` vs `serverless-proxy`, or would it just be differently named in order to set the expectations for the...

@pchickey I'm guessing we'll want to stick with 0.2.0 for the dependencies for now, and just change to `package wasi:[email protected]` in `proxy.wit`?

Got it; updated the version and also edited the PR title to better reflect the new approach

Unsure why the CI check is failing here; I have `wit-bindgen-cli` 0.17.0 installed as does the Actions script, but the `--check` test is failing on the output I've produced.

@lukewagner great! @elliottt do you already have a branch with this or should I prepare a PR?

> I suppose that since `consume` is already part of the api, we would need a new name, but perhaps we could mirror the rust api you mentioned and call...

In that case, maybe we should add `into-parts` as a static method and consider deprecating `consume`? I'm not sure what standards of compatibility we want to keep between 0.2.0 and...

@elliottt I can't tag you as reviewer, but I just opened #103 with these new static methods.