Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for protobuf batch format #801

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 12, 2021

Conversation

JemDay
Copy link
Contributor

@JemDay JemDay commented Apr 1, 2021

feat: Add specification for protobuf batch format.

Extend protobuf format specification to include a batch format for protobuf.

Closes #794

Signed-off-by: Day, Jeremy(jday) [email protected]

Copy link
Contributor

@jskeet jskeet left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One minor nit in two places, but otherwise this is exactly as I'd expected - thanks :)

protobuf-format.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
spec.proto Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@JemDay JemDay force-pushed the jd-proto-batch branch 3 times, most recently from 276b125 to 6aaa2c9 Compare April 6, 2021 18:07
Update prototbuf format to define how batches of protobuf
format events are represented.

Signed-off-by: Day, Jeremy(jday) <[email protected]>

Although the _protobuf batch format_ builds on the _protobuf format_ it is considered
seperate, that is to say that support of _protobuf format_ does not indicate support
of the batch representation. The batch format MUST only be used where supported.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure how to interpret that MUST. Is that a statement for the sender or receiver? How does the sender know?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@JemDay JemDay Apr 8, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's similar language in the JSON format specification .. the essence is that just because somebody claims to support cloudevents+json does NOT imply that they also support cloudevents-batch+json.

I can tweak the language a bit more if desired, or copy-paste from the JSON spec ;-)

@duglin
Copy link
Collaborator

duglin commented Apr 12, 2021

Approved on the 4/8 call

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants