Lukasz Gornicki

@sdras hey, sorry about error with the missing title case. Fixed, and conflicts solved. Thanks for your efforts in maintaining this list!

might be related with https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/94

@crussell52 definitely, have a look at the contribution guide that explains the spec contribution stages. Also, look at the related issue that I linked before, where few people already shared...

For request/reply I definitely encourage you to join https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/94 For now @GreenRover decided to champion that and get it into the spec. Work is done as part of AsyncAPI 3.0...

looking at the list, I would ask is it worth the effort if we have 2.5 scheduled for September, so 1.5 month away

> AsyncAPI won't ever release PATCH versions? I'm personally always afraid of such statements, I like saying `never say never` the fix that we now say to do in a...

Hey @Crain-32. Thanks a lot for great quality issue 🙇🏼 I understand you want to basically contribute to https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings/tree/master/stomp Do you have an example AsyncAPI file with your proposed bindings...

@Crain-32 yeah the example with how you see binding in use would help a lot. I'm super interested in this subject because when I was working on [this article](https://www.asyncapi.com/blog/websocket-part2) using...

let me add a bit more to this discussion. but first in short: why not adding a new `subprotocol` (or actually `subprotocols` at [technically more than one can be supported](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Protocol_upgrade_mechanism))...

@smoya > Isn't that what I mentioned in https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/issues/787#issuecomment-1167538551 ? I understood from your comment, that `ws` is next to `stomp` (technically in the document, as 2 separate bindings). While...