Chris Gillum
Chris Gillum
I agree we should have a solution for this.
I recommend we start with a simpler solution, which is to add restrictions on workflow and activity input and output sizes. We should do this first and do work to...
Updated title to reflect the impacted scenario. Also added the `P1` label: it's important to fix this, but as an edge case I don't consider it a release blocker.
This is a breaking change, so if it needs to be done, it needs to be done in v1.15.
FYI @halspang and @RyanLettieri - this is something I asked @MregXN to help with. For additional context, the workflow APIs exposed by `DaprClient` were originally intended to be general purpose...
Marked as `P0` since I think we shouldn't declare workflows as stable with APIs that we don't intend to support.
@WhitWaldo good observation. I think the difference is that #1344 tracks removing the APIs whereas this item tracks removing all _references_ to those APIs. Technically, this one could be completed...
I'll be helping out with the triage of these items over the next few days.
@olitomlinson I think https://github.com/dapr/dapr/issues/3417 might be referring to GitHub actions workflows and not Dapr Workflow. If you agree, then we can probably take it off this list.
Added prioritized list of Java SDK issues to the OP.