specification
specification copied to clipboard
serverlessworkflow
Context Data Scoping
What would you like to be added:
Add a feature to enable scoping $context data.
Why is this needed:
In some specific cases, a user might want to only provide a slice of its context data to sub tasks, which is especially true when performing iterations (for/while) to avoid useless bloating.
It is also true for parallel writes, which you'd rather have on a small slice of a potentially huge context than on its whole. Google Workflows addresses that by explicitly sharing variables.
I think that to properly discuss this we need a pointer to the current section of the doc where $context and variable scoping is discussed.
I opened dicussion https://github.com/serverlessworkflow/specification/discussions/890. I think we need to discuss a few thing before considering this case.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
Hi,
- to understand the proposal could you please describe how limiting the $scope to certain variables would reduce bloating (I guess it depends on the internal implementation of a runtime)
- in your mind, would you do it "per value" (updating the new scope would not change the workflow scope), or "per reference"?
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.
