spec
spec copied to clipboard
feat: add googlepubsub bindings
Adds support for Google Cloud Pub/Sub to the Channel Binding Object
and Message Binding Object
lists.
Related issue(s): Bindings PR: https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings/pull/141 JSON Schema PR: https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/pull/253
Added as pending candidate for 2.5 release - https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/830
@whitlockjc please also mention it under other bindings, even if for now they do not contain any official binding definition. It is for consistency, and to keep the word reserved for the same protocol along all bindings. Have a look at solace
as example
also please list googlepubsub
under protocols
in Server Object
@whitlockjc please also mention it under other bindings, even if for now they do not contain any official binding definition. It is for consistency, and to keep the word reserved for the same protocol along all bindings. Have a look at
solace
as examplealso please list
googlepubsub
underprotocols
inServer Object
I'm not sure I follow. Does adding Google Cloud Pub/Sub bindings require a relating protocol? I assume that adding a new protocol would mean modifying the JSON Schemas PR as well?
Done.
@char0n I think we are ready to merge this one. There was one merge conflict I had to solve manually, it was related to recent IBM MQ bug fix, addition of missing binding, and it was conflicting with new googlepubsub
@derberg I'm a bit worried about the timing here. Merging this work will trigger rounds of work that would need to be done. Given that we're just days before the release deadline I would opt postponing (I'm not sure If I have this option) this work to the next release.
As far as I understand this would require providing implementation to parser-js, right @magicmatatjahu?
What do you think guys?
@char0n there is no need to do anything in parser-js, so we just need to merge this one and https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/pull/253. There is also no need for any followup implementation in other AsyncAPI tools
Yeah, as @derberg wrote, due to fact that bindings are "dynamic" objects and their shape is determined by binding's version, we treat bindings in tooling as raw JSON data - we don't have any models/api for bindings.
@char0n so, are we merging? https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/pull/253 is approved, so all ready
@derberg @magicmatatjahu thanks guys for explanations.
Merging.
/rtm
:tada: This PR is included in version 2.5.0-next-spec.4 :tada:
The release is available on GitHub release
Your semantic-release bot :package::rocket: