Vladimír Gorej

Closing as the #779 has been merged to master as editorial change.

Hi everybody, I was CCed in https://github.com/asyncapi/spec-json-schemas/pull/171, so let me share my opinion as well here. IMHO I can see a couple of problems here: `Components`.`channels` field in defined in...

> Please look at this proposal from point of view person who need to write several AsyncAPI documents and use that same channel in few documents. Of course can make...

> Maybe I don't understand the second paragraph (sorry!), but a channel key and an address are two completely different things in my opinion. I understand that the keys may...

Hi guys, I was thinking about this some more during the night, and looking at this change through the lens of different persona - as a tooling author (not definition...

> Referring to the change itself: I wonder if when we have an address inside a Channel Item Object, shouldn't the .channels shape of the object be changed to a...

I've issued a [PR](https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/pull/776) that remedies the situation and would probably suggest to go for **2.4.1** as soon as possible.

@fmvilas this change is for 2.x branch, the #777 is for 3.x branch. Assuming we don't know exactly how soon the 2.x branch of the spec goes away and it...

@derberg it's up to you to decide. I can only provide reasons why it would be maybe appropriate: The only reason I created the PR is that I work on...

@derberg @dalelane can I ask you to look into this PR? Thanks!