Jesse Menning

I think this proposal addresses, in a generic way, an issue that will likely continue to re-emerge. OpenAPI naturally uses JSON due to its focus on synchronous RESTful interactions. The...

> `remoteReference` isn't good solution for pointing to the remote source which should be fetched, because then link to this source must be handled by tool to fetch that, and...

> Currently we have many objects defined in XSD. These historical objects can be repurposed as event attributes. This unlocks tremendous value(financial, technical) if re-use can be accomplished. Looking forward...

Many thanks to @magicmatatjahu , @TamimiGitHub , @masterhead and @damaru-inc for helping me understand the implications here. I've learned a lot thanks to you all. In an attempt to summarize,...

Thanks for @smarek for the interesting proposal. Reading through I had two thoughts: - As this is **Async**API (and there exists OpenAPI, which lives to represent synchronous HTTP calls), perhaps...

> I think this is a very positive proposal and helps with a lot of the issues around re-use of channels in typical microservice documentation etc. > > A quick...

> ### Is it backward-compatible? > Absolutely not. > **Concerns** I think this deserves a lot of thought and discussion. As @GeraldLoeffler states, as a 2.1 specification, there is an...

> Alright. You gave me an idea and I changed the proposal. Now `components` only have `servers` and not remotes, since a remote is a server in the end. We...

> @magicmatatjahu proposed having a `kind` attribute that differentiates both and I think it's starting to make more sense now that `components/remotes` is not a thing anymore. @fmvilas, that seems...

This is a great discussion and it sounds like a good idea. Any chance we could have a brief real-time discussion of this, either at a v3 meeting or a...