 Well, you guys are early not so early. I didn't think I thought I'd be alone here for a minute. Hold on I joined like an hour ago. Just waiting for Nothing would surprise me with you guys John I know wait a minute. That was an Eric. Was that John? No Maybe that was Eric Anyway, that's what I thought Johnny there. Yes. Good morning. Good morning and Tommy Yo, yo Lance Hello, it's funny. I was assuming we'd actually have a really short call today and then things kind of grew So we'll see how it goes. Hello, Kristoff Hello, amen. Well, hi and Christian. Oh, no microphone yet. And then in that case we'll go for Clemens Yes, hello Christian you find there Simon either Yes Mr. Baldwin David either. I wonder if you're on double mute Hello and Brian are you there? Hello Doug. Hello Lucas, are you there? Yes, I'm there. Hello Hey, what about Jesse? Yep, president, thank you. Yep Lionel I'm here. Hello Anish Hey Doug. Hello Klaus Yeah, hi, I'm here. Hello Daniel, are you there? Here Hello All right, one more minute then we'll get started Remy. Hey Remy. All right, tell you what There we go, three after we let's get started All right, first things first Who's gonna be around next week does anybody want to have a call next week? I know that to a lot of people they kind of start their vacation around the 15th or so that gives like two full weeks for the end of the year, but 15th, I believe it's like Tuesday or something like that Do you want does anybody want to have a call next week or should this be the last one for the year? Need some opinions Because I won't be here Okay, I won't be here. Okay, Brian and Clemens anybody else want to chime in? This was Lance. I won't be here. Okay I'm sorry, my machine's doing something weird. Can you guys hear me? Yeah, yes, weird. My Mac says I'm completely muted. So I don't know what's going on Okay, so let's let's turn this around then Does anybody want to have a call next week just because you're here does that mean you want to have a call Simon and Manuel? I have a feeling Okay Yeah, I think okay, I'm not hearing anybody really say but they're anxious for a call. So Let's just say this is it. Okay. Cool. All right community time anything from the community if you want to bring up All right, SDK calls last week. I think we just talked about the Trace extension a little things that go questions on that Anybody have any questions for the SDK subgroup? All right, moving on then we technically have a discovery and I'll call after this one So please if you're planning on doing implementation stick around It might be kind of short we'll see how it goes Team or anything you want to talk about relative to the workflow subgroup Right. I'll make this quick. Yeah, we're working basically currently on the roadmap for our 0.6 release So there's a lot of stuff going around that the only other thing is we had a ton of contributions for our go SDK So that was big and if anybody is also in this call. Thank you So that and also just want to mention we only have like a couple days left for Kubecon EU Talk submissions, right? So kind of trying to figure that out. Thank you for matter Kubecon Kubecon EU TFP deadline coming fast All right, any questions for team or about workflow Alright in that case. I opened up a PR. I apologize. It was a little late on this, but I didn't expect too many people to care For version 101 and here's a list of all the significant PRs I did kind of drop all the ones that are like typo in nature Did any does anybody have any Concerns notice anything wrong in the diff here? Most of it was changing out the work in progress to be just 1-0 for anything that appears in the spec and 1-0-1 for anything that's in the document So that's why you see in the docs ceiling something like that Anybody notice anything weird? Okay, any objection then to approving that And we had that would have because officially have a 101 all right not hearing an injection cool. Thank you everybody Congratulations to one at all Okay, so on last week's call we agreed to rename the master branch dev. However When I tried to make the change I did not realize what would happen And it basically closed all PRs that were associated with the master branch I kind of assumed that we get migrated over or something like that. Well, it didn't So I recreated master branch and that and then I re-brought back all those PRs back to life So we're back to a happy state And I did some looking around that I believe github is working on some migration tool or something to help with this situation I'm assuming though Do some sort of migration thingy so until that happens or until we actually close all of our PRs I don't think we can easily Make the the name change unless you want to force everybody to redo their PRs, which I don't want to do quite yet Because I don't think that's necessarily urgent to do But let's see if we can at least get down to maybe one PR or so then we can force somebody to redo it But unless someone can think of some process. I'm not Noticing I don't think we can just do a simple rename without breaking something Okay, not doing anything. Okay before we get into the other PRs I wanted to give slinky a chance to talk about Google summer of code And then he wants to obviously talk about his language expression thingy. So slinky you want to take over? Yeah, so this is mostly from the SDK Lambda and there is some contributors which might be interested in doing the summer code contributing to SDKs so I Was trying to figure out what what would be a nice argument or nice projects we could do and And I have two in my mind. So one is develop Do a project to continue the efforts of the integration test So I see for us probably somebody will recall at some point we discussed about come from a stash kind of tck for the SDKs, but Nobody had a chance to continue that Effort, so I don't know. Maybe it might be something cool as a summer of code project another project could be Developing a new SDK with some language that we still don't support. I have some examples Provide and I think that might be an interesting project. So Well, my question for you is do we want to roll the CNCF serverless working group to Do the summer of code or can we or can we somehow start start from From the from the CNCF foundation and then push some projects through through the CNCF foundation and rolling So what does it mean to sign up for the for the for this summer of code thing? Is it what is it just? Does someone need to provide guidance to them? What kind of effort is involved on our side? So on our side the effort is first we need some We need somebody that can actively follow some students So that's one thing That can definitely help with that and another one is that As an organization We need to fill out some Some forms To get us approved in the summer of code. I'm I'm pretty sure that we can't do that from a legal perspective because the point of us being here is That we're a neutral venue and it would be really weird if we as a community would be then contributing to projects that are effectively breaking that Breaking the setup Because ultimately we would be contributing into a effort that's run by one company So I'm fairly sure that by the rules of the CNCF That is not possible. I record the Linux foundation sometimes enrolled to to the summer of code as a foundation Well, I For example, for example, sorry For example, the eclipse the eclipse foundation does it every year and I managed to to mentor some some people Doesn't it kind of depend on what these forms are asking? I mean if the form is just saying hey Do you want to submit some ideas for students or is it some sort of legalistic thing? I mean that would influence it, wouldn't it? To be honest, I I'm not sure but I get I get I'm pretty sure that the CNCF was foundation Can can enroll to that? I'm pretty sure well, can you get a hold of the forms and then we can take a look at it and We can also reach out to the CNCF team or a leadership to find out that this is even legal Sure. Yeah, okay. Well, I can if you give me one second I can try to check if last year we Mean the CNCF wasn't there because because really I'm not sure I'm not sure that I want that that I want to continue to contribute to a Google Recruiting Drive Put it that way No, I mean, I mean, that's what it is, right? It's like it's like hey I'm gonna go and continue in Microsoft Imagine Cup. That's kind of the same thing and I think the answer is no If you put it on this way, I mean I Personally, I personally don't care. I think the effort is interesting and we can get as a community we can get something from it Said that I don't care if you if you come and say look I we want to I want to do The the Microsoft thingy About contributing to open source or we want to do the Red Hat thingy contributing I'm okay with that. I don't care about it. See that my my question in those things is Why are they doing that? Like like what's the end game here? And there's always the end game in those things So Google is not doing that because they're they're really nice I mean that might be doing that because they're really nice But ultimately there's a motivation behind those things and and what you're contributing to But at the end everyone has a motivation even in these groups Yes The thing is we are here we are here together because we are a neutral venue To develop open to develop open standards and then if I would find it iffy if we would then As that venue go and participate into something that uniquely benefits a single company And it doesn't matter whether it's Google or Microsoft or Amazon or whoever Yeah, I do get your point for me Maybe I'm too pragmatic. He's just almost free money And if we are here to just make sure that they are not trying to steal the project in a way There is no such thing as free money. Yeah, I know I mean I Like in a way your company also decide that you will spend some time with us and they probably pay you while you're working together Absolutely, I do but we also have goals in those things and but we're everybody has goals But we're neutral here, but then then we're not together contributing into a third thing Yeah, yeah, I do that's right I think both are different label in my opinion if we do that It's just our group needs to make sure that we keep this independence Yeah, and we can't because it's under the umbrella of under the umbrella of a Google proprietary effort That I'm not a lawyer. Sorry. I really don't know. So so slinky. When is the deadline to sign up for this? I recall it's like January So it sounds like we may have time to to do a little more investigation and then come back with a Come back in January and discuss this meeting first meeting From 29th January to 19th February Mentoring organization can begin Okay, so we have we have time to do some investigation then. Yeah, sure. Okay, so Would you be willing to agree to to do some To well see when what's interesting is when I was looking at these links you sent I couldn't find the actual form to fill out that you're talking about maybe you could Because it's open Yeah, I mean they open the form in January. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, then tell you what let me go ahead and I'll take the action item then to reach out to to Chris Anna check to find out Why the CNCF is okay with this when it's a company-led thingy To shadow address your concerns Clemens Is that okay? Yes Oh, actually when string I should do when do you want to start back up again? Let me just double-check my calendar when it's see this the first Thursday in January is the 7th Is that the so the first is Friday I assume most everybody has the first or everybody's gonna first off because that's New Year's day What people most people will be taking off the first week in January the fourth through the eighth So the first day should be this 14th or do you want the first meeting to be on the 7th? Okay, Lance is okay with the 7th anybody else. I'm good Yeah I need I need some people to speak up here because I'm hearing a little more towards the 14th, but 14 Okay, okay. I'm hearing a soft leaning towards 14. Anybody have a strong disagreement with that and would really really want to meet on the 7th Okay, we'll go to there for the 14th then. Thank you all. All right. So back down to here Okay, I'll talk to Chris and see why this is okay from a legal perspective or in a even a perception perspective Sleaky anything else you want to I just got a reference to the to the to the key clause From the rules into the chat. Cool. That's a lot of it. Let's take a quick look Let's see 8.1 Visibility D3 be oh my gosh Okay, it's well hidden but that that is exactly where they're doing that Interesting Okay, as I said as I said on the chatting testing enough. I was hired by red after And not by Google D3 B. Thank you Holy moly. All right, I will I will quiz Chris on that one and get you some information. Okay. All right Okay, anything else on Google thingy, okay in that case slinky expression language Yeah, so first I want to reply to Timur theorem theorem in the chat So, yes Use that outside of Seattle. Well, the idea is that You should develop some language which is really designed to get cloud events as input. So if I Guess workflow is based on called events. So that could work. I guess did I answer your question? Yes, thank you very much. Thanks for answer. Okay. Wait, your answer is it see it see specific, right? Yes Okay, keep going. Okay, so so I I did some Investigation on the thing you sent last week Clements So I saw some differences Which are interesting? We are regarding that particular MQP filtering using sequel But none of them are I Mean we could solve them. It's not really a big issue What I'm trying to understand is what do we gain from using? sequel dialect more than developing our own grammar Yeah Standards try to be terribly more specific We we we are gathered here together to make sure that we're not doing things We're not inventing things that have already been invented that was that is one of the principles that were that were following here It's like we have not created our own transport for cloud events. We're using existing transports We have nothing we have not invented our own our own encoding encoding system We're using existing ones and so therefore I would be very happy if we would be using existing filter models rather than Using it yet rather than inventing one if we can avoid it. Yeah, but When I struggled to see us Outcreating a sequel dialect, it's really Using a standard because here we are just saying a look we were used the same syntax the same grammar of Of another standard, but in fact the language is different and the evolution is different So, how are we really reusing sequel if we go down the road? Sequel sequel sequel night. See that the subset of sequel that is being used in jms and That every messaging developer who's using jms knows Is is governed by the rules of sequel 92 And which means sequel 92 also indicates that it's pretty old and pretty established So I'm not sure whether and I'm not sure whether we should and and it's apparently Such that it has been very stable over the years in that all major message brokers are using that language And so it does the job. So the question is why shall we go and and and invent a new thing? Well, I'm not really saying My point is still Let's say let's say we want to go down the path and develop a sequel dialect. Okay When I get down and I start the and I start implementing it. Let's say in SDK go for example What can I effectively reuse of? What's already It's not about the code. It's about the user Okay, okay understand users of Users have to do with messaging systems Which worse we're dealing with here And who are familiar with familiar with gms, for instance, which is the predominant API for messaging Because most people are using Java Are familiar with message selectors and that's using a sequel language. So you're picking picking up a large Number of users exactly where they are with something that they know That is like that's like Do you want it's same thing as with databases, right? Everybody has and I think I said that last time We went from sequel to Oh sequel is not a sequel is bad and so therefore we should go and do our own thing For about three or four years and now every database is doing sequel again If you look at extreme analytics Everybody's doing sequel spark is doing sequel as Samza is doing sequel Confluent is doing sequel everybody's doing sequel There is no reason why we should why we should go and invent a new thing That is just that is just different because it's cloud events Yes, there might be that like differences But their sequel has won all the wars on the database front as well as in it's now winning in streaming So I don't see a reason why we should have a different language Well, I I rather see this in a different way that serverless users come from a JavaScript background So I will love to give them some more Some syntax which is more familiar for them. Everybody's using sequel. I mean literally Everybody's using sequel with everything I think I could differ on that also and we'll be more on the swingy side I think like Jason Puff in a way is better than or just an query Would be better than sequel if you look at like people who really just do Java Street Because of like all the node sequel Database I think they do less sequel like at least I do way less sequel than I used to do 15 years ago But your argument are still good Yes, you have to you have to you have to take a look at what what's happening in the event in the eventing space, right in eventing We're having we're having a We have giant fights in in terms of who's building the better You know event analytics analytics platforms and all of them all the abstractions are all using sequel Like there's you have you have a patchy beam as a top abstraction as I said you have spark and Samza and storm and case equal and And all of those are and you have Azure streaming analytics that is sequel language the there's sequel dialect that is in in kinesis Everybody's using sequel. So just to remind everybody we do have a speakers cue and my hands up No, that's fine because you know you guys usually are good about this stuff. Just want to remind people So I have a question Would it be useful to help? Come to the to to an answer if we can actually see examples in both sequel and The alternatives that people are proposing like so for example slinky you were proposing JavaScript or some variant of JavaScript kind of thing It would help me out if I could actually look at what the two look like because I obviously understand The desire for standards. That's why we're here But it's not it's a hundred percent clear to me How it would look and feel from a sequel perspective? I kind of guess what it would look like But I'll let them know for sure just by saying okay if you want to do a filter I want all cloud events that have a type of this and Another attribute matching this or type of this or that you imagine that to see how the and and ors look in the choice of languages Just to see what they look like because I think that would help me out because I'm all for standards When they make sense and if we look at the sequel one it says, oh my god Yes, it's great at the standard But my god that that that's painful to use and unnatural then I'm not as inclined to do it but if it's simply a a minor syntactical difference between sequel versus JavaScript then That worry is lessened to me. So is it possible to get some concrete examples to see what they both look like? Go ahead. Okay. Yeah, you can open the The thing I sent in the chat. Oh, cool. Okay. Whoops. Sorry wrong window Again, it's not a stack it's more above of a DSI Okay Yeah, and there is a section example And this is JavaScript though, right or job was this is your this is your this is the the expression language Yeah, yeah, so that this is something brand-new is what you're saying. Yeah, right Do we have something that shows what the sequel would look like? So if I go if I go into yeah, you can open If I go into the examples from top exactly where we are the first one would be exists The second is a simple equal the third one is first them equals Francesco or subject equals Francesco The next one is all the all the parentheses are the same and then first name equals Francesco and Last name equals Gardiani Or subject equals so single equals Then case incident insensitive equals is a is a Collate but that's not in that's actually not in the subset that has that jms has Also because that's case insensitive in case that's the comparisons are just too hard And that's why nobody's doing them on the on the hot path Time year would be daytime There's a daytime subset Operator That will give you that in the year There's no Conversion because everything is you do see by default And then sequence equals 10 So simple simple equal and there's no and there's no All the all the type all the typing is implied implied There's there's infer inference rules in sequel But you can cast you can you can you can you can type cast it's okay Thank you very much. So that helps a lot. So it sounds like at least for these examples up here It's a relatively minor syntactical difference. Yes, it's my it's molded syntactical differences is that here we're using effect, this is all using kind of the the C languages way of expressing these things and Sequel is doing that with its constructs like or and all the the operators that are more explicit Okay, thank you very much Lionel, leave your hands up next Yeah, I just want to to say what a question about the type system, right? So when we talk about timestamp in in sequel is that exactly the same timestamp that We have in the cloud event specification in particular. I think sequel use the ISO 86 0 1 So do we Which is different for sorry for for the C which is more like based on the IRC and specification Yeah, minor differences, but so cloud event is using our C 3339 Which is a which is a profile of ISO 86 or 86 0 1 Yeah, that's a profile, but there's like minor Syntactic differences between the two right, so that's something we Know the subset. It's a profile of so every every IRC 33 9 string is a compliant ISO 86 or 1 string. All right It was not my understanding, but okay, okay. I thought it's another hand up there a minute ago. Did someone Drop out, okay, so I'd like to hear from other people that they have a picking on this. Should I pick on somebody? There we go. Mr. Mitchell Just to help you out The I guess one of the things I would say is is just looking Historically, right everybody jumped on things like Mongo, right? And various ORM custom languages and if you look at their evolution, they all started re-adding constructs basically from squeal Right as they evolved Okay, so so I don't I don't think I don't think history has been kind to people fighting against squeal for these kinds of problems and You know, I'm not the biggest squeal fan in the world But that's just the way things have worked. So, you know, I guess from that standpoint I'm I'm I guess I'm throwing in with Clemens argument I have to admit the fact your client squeal instead of SQL is great. I love that Never heard that before I swear that is hilarious Okay, I'm sorry team or your your hands up. I Think Anish was first. Oh, okay. It's showing the other way to maybe go ahead Anish I'd like to propose a different way to solve this problem. I mean, I don't know if everybody agrees to that So let's pick it from usage perspective. So Considering our current use case that where we want to put this expression language or sequel in terms of user We need to understand that where are we going to place it from the user experience perspective? So if for example, we want to put these syntax in the URL of The discovery API the subscription API we have to probably ask ourselves that Do we want to go ahead with these? Operator based syntax or do we want to put an entire sequel query into that URL? So I think then that would give us a better perspective that which Protocol should we follow in terms of, you know filter criteria? That's that makes sense Are you are you implying that one would be easier in a URL than the other because I'm not seeing much of a difference. Yeah No, I mean when it comes to operators, it's certainly easier in the URL compared to the sequel query because sequel query can go humongously large Yeah, sorry There's I think this can also be as good as complicated as a sequel query. I think sequel the sequel subset here There were there were debating is not in a full sequel query. It's the where it's effected the syntax of the where clause Just the operators from the sequel query not that entire Crazy correct. There's a yes So there's the precedent the precedent for that is is the sequel message selectors that exist in Yeah, that makes sense too, but now we would have another third standard if you all so I see your point as well Like if we introduce another standard, then we probably bring I don't know third or fourth standard in in the community for filter criteria itself like so for example We have the sequel standards then we have the over data standards. They also have rewritten their entire expression logic Yeah, would this one we would probably be introducing another one. I Do get this but I thought that for cloud when we probably want to make something simpler so Yeah Sorry, probably bringing to the same square. That's okay. Um My team work gets ready to come off mute. It's thinking you asked me to bring up the document Do you mean this Microsoft Word document? Yeah, this one. Okay. I'm bringing that up. Let's go to see me No, I simply wanted to ask is like when I look at the document link and And I have a different perspective, of course and look at this from a different angle I really like this expression language for event correlation And I just wanted to think see if you guys thought about using it for that And if that's even applicable because being able to do the expressions that I see in this document to me when I have You know a large number of events. I want to define primary and secondary and so on correlation between those This is really interesting for for me at least You're talking about when you say this is interesting you're talking about This right here language and the examples that are provided a thing a little below especially when I can say The expression like certain context variable is this or that or have an actual expression language where I can Define the correlation of my events That would be really cool. Okay. Hold on a minute. Let me Where's my screen sharing thing? Let me stop showing that and then we start sharing. Oh, that's annoying. Oh, there it is Microsoft Word So where in here Clemens should I go to show an example of? What do I look like? Lots of XML flashbacks I muted myself in the most in least opportune moment goes to the start of section six Okay Yeah, as you see defining the language like this is actually hard Because I had to start from the bottom because I couldn't lean on the JMS spec So I had to have to do the whole thing with with type inference, etc. So The simplest so the simplest expression here is color blue, which is assuming a So this is for an NGP message. So this is referring to the default section, which is the application property section And that's how you can go and filter that you have a message where it has an application property and that's called color and Whether that is blue. That's what that's doing and then there's special Short-hands here to refer to the various sections of an NGP message Which is not the case that we don't have that so we would only have the simplest case And then you can go in and further down you have so the field to if that is equal test and The content type Like is like Application Jason, which means that's a prefix Or plus Jason exists as an infix So you could go and filter that and then you can also say if two is test and The content that's like this and the colors blue or red Then you filter that so if you want to go and build effectively subscription filters using that language You can also you can also do that and you would only with cloud events. You might only do the shorthand form Because that's What the application property what the properties are that you're mapping into if you were doing that with a MPP They would all be sitting all the the cloud events properties are sitting in the application bag Which means they would be all cloud events call on, you know, the the name that we give them and then there's if you scroll down from there on 6 to you get all the Implicit conversion expansions and how you get it can numeric type and you know, all that all works from from turning text into text into Into into types that you can go and compare between them Which is actually kind of hard to to do and you we would have to go and do all of those things We would have to go and do for our expression language as an expression language as well And so this keeps going down like if you scroll a little bit further time sands and then here are the grammar elements. So there's There's is predicates in predicates like predicates exist predicates. That's what the one that we had And then we have all the various operators that are defined comparison operators that are defined and that's the kind of that's the kind of Brutal stuff that you have to go and work through to to define this in a way that you know, everybody can use it And this is either a subset or profile of the fully Sequel spec, right? Yes. So this is the leaning this leans on sequel 92 The ISO standard and it's effectively breaking out From sequel 92, but since it's not sequel 92 proper And sequel 92 is far bigger grammar This needs to go and effectively cut this down and then it's also somewhat deviating from sequel in the way that all the references to To the fields are different from a database So in in proper sequel you have a notion of a database and a table and all those things that we don't have that here We have a message and we're so we're referring to to to a message And that requires that we need to go in and change that In some way, but otherwise everything else is is borrowed from directly from sequel and and mostly compatible with it Okay, Manuel your hands up Yeah, I did my fair share of sequel and I like the capitalized and then the whole As I understand it, we're just using the conditions here, right? So this is not really that heavily sequel based And I wonder so in all of what I've seen from the document I try to open it myself confine it How do you go with arrays and stuff like that? So if you have really complex expressions over multiple elements in I Don't even know if we have that in cloud event cloud events themselves. We have a pretty flat structure But how does that work with a MQP or it doesn't so that we've we've so structures are flat And there are there are some there are some Scenarios where you can go and drill into a structure Like for instance, you have these like this the you have these top top top level elements That are the application property section the property section and the annotations, etc But there is no There are no there's there's no support for arrays It's also would be far too expensive to do that in these In these filters because if you deal with arrays, then you are already doing Then you have to go and do things like joins and selections Etc. And so we've we've scoped those out Because one so once you deal with arrays You're already on the on the slippery slope into having a programming constructs like for like like for etc So we explicitly said we don't want that And and and and and jm and jm SMS selectors also don't have that Does that interest you guys remember? Not sure so there is this array element reference so you can for all that list so you can select elements So you can you can you're saying you don't have aggregate functions for arrays that are part of the structure or there was no aggregates So you can see you can drill into you can drill into an array explicitly If you find one in the in the NGP test system, but there is no way to enumerate Things from an array or do aggregations Because this is this is for filtering. This is not for for aggregating What I like about the chasing paths is the expression where I can make a selection in the in the brackets To find an element in an array Is that at least part of the drilling into a structure? Fine. Yeah, there's an in So there's a there's an in state. There's an in clause So you can you could say is is this value in this? Pre-pre-predefined set. Okay Slinky, I think your hands up next Yeah, I wanted to reply to a niche comment about And not creating a new spec. I mean if I understood currently what comments is saying about SQL We still need a spec like the one that now that is showing on the screen So which is tailored for call events. Am I right, Clemens? Because there are some differences so still Yes, absolutely. We need to we need to have a we need to have a we need to have a spec Clearly, it's just I'm what what I'm when I'm Arguing is that we should not go We should try to align with something that exists in terms of concept concepts and and And ideas that developers need to deal with instead of straying from from others and It should also be possible to go and reuse functionality implemented in in existing messaging infrastructure for our purposes It is very unlikely that active mq will go and accommodate specifically Cloud events or that IBM mq will But they all already speak the sequel language So if we can filter cloud if we if we can if we can shape this cloud event spec such That we can leverage those implementations already That would be great That still means that we have to go and write a spec That we'll have to define define that sufficiently good for for For new implementations But so if you wanted to go and build this in something that is not that's not in not a message broker But but it would be ideal if we didn't have if we could leverage existing functionality, which means if we can have a sequel profile That effectively map already matches What is implemented in jms or what is defined in jms? Then every jms compliant broker which supports message selectors will be suitable I answer your question slinky Okay, so hold on a minute. Let me stop sharing that Go back to sharing Where is it? It's not working. Hold on a second. Oh, there we go All right. We're back to this. Okay So Trying to figure out how to make progress here um I I guess From my perspective, I'm not seeing much of a difference between the two. I got to be honest um Slinky aside from the syntactical difference of things like or versus double You know vertical bar and and versus double and sign Is there is there a cement? Is there a semantic difference that you see between the two or is this strictly syntactical to me uh I see the syntax difference as the big one because if we uh, if we then define our own dialect We can match the semantic in the way we want. So we can align the semantic to The expected usage of the language. So for me, it's very The most important figure is the syntactic difference and also don't see that big um ability to reuse stuff later. So I don't know for me, it's really a syntactic syntactical difference and the syntax is I personally think syntax is one of the most important features of any language. So Depending on the syntax you you attract a specific user, please Yeah, okay. Thank you. I think that's where we need to agree really Yeah, okay. Thank you. Uh, john your hands up Yeah, so I was gonna ask so If you're if your focus is primarily on the syntax, what about what do you think of cleman's arguments around? uh being able to uh You know, I don't know entice the the broker people to More aggressively adopt cloud events because they can reuse stuff. They already have Whether either it's directly or very close That that seems like a pretty important argument to this discussion Well, my counterargument is exactly that SQL might not as well as truck Function as a service people JavaScript developers, so So do you believe that that? Let's figure out how to word this. So do you believe that the The I don't know the JavaScript ghetto purists won't Pick something up just because it's SQL even though they interact with SQL and graphql and all sorts of other apis that JavaScript native I don't think they won't pick it up. Um, just uh, just think that It won't be natural to them. I guess I mean, it's I think we are really down in the personal preferences, but so Right, but so that's but I think that's part of the argument, right? If it's if we're down to to its peripheral preference for a particular subset of I mean, you know the whole point we're here is to create interoperability across of very wide spectrum of communities So, you know, it's trying to you know, how much are we trying to tailor to JavaScript people that that are, you know, I don't know Very opinionated I'll say it that way versus You know, it is an ecosystem and the dominant players in the ecosystem have already More or less converged On a solution and like I said, I'm not a I'm not a squeal fan. So this is not coming from that bias Okay, so it's a team or your hands up I just wanted to quickly say it has a counter argument not only for JavaScript like for example in the business automation java runtimes that I'm kind of writing for a couple of them It's much easier for me to say, okay We will implement cloud events and the cloud events Expression language, which I'm sure the sd case will provide Implementation for then including sql libraries that I don't know who is going to actually Or whose library I'm going to have to pull in so to me Cloud events and cloud events has a lot of potential or to the community at least Has a very good feeling at least for me Okay, let me your hands up Yeah, for me, uh, maybe another way to solve this is I think it's optional anyway So we could also just say there is like two specifications one that is the sql one and another one that is like the expression language and we just say Define the way if they are supposed to work And then as it's optional depending who wants to implement what and then it's just based on the product no So so my hands up because that I'm having flashbacks to the w s star soap days where everybody said You know, which which security measure you use is optional You know, they're all optional pick your favorite one and and that's great And the problem was there's zero in or out of building And and that personally that's what I'd like to avoid if we're going to have a language I think there should be a a single common one that You know if you're going to support some kind of query thing Then I think there should be a common one that everybody has to support otherwise like I said zero in up building But that's just my take on it Oh john you dropped there you go john you're back Yeah, I I think you used a nicer example that I I would but I totally agree if it's if it's optional It's going to be crap So okay, we're almost out of time here. Um I don't think we can make a decision yet on this call. I think I still think it'd be interesting to see a flat out Line-by-line comparison between the two Why don't I work Slinky how about you and I work offline and we'll And clements if you can check your email during vacation every now and then We'll see if we can come up with a document that sort of shows these things side by side And we'll put that in front of the group and say okay Here are the two choices from a straight syntax perspective And then if there isn't a clear winner, we can then just do a vote Well, we can do that assuming there is The same semantic True. Yes, but I think that would hope that was like because I saw that like for example the the sequel filter that Clements proposed has some different casting roles from this one. So we need To show those differences too Yep, I always assume just one semantic and we just show this at the same text difference No, I think we need to make sure that for each one we show The full feature set that we want to support right so for example if You're definitely your your language here supports something that that the sql one doesn't then and that's important feature to us Or if you think that's an important feature then let's put that in there and say here's what yours looks like SQL has no equivalent. Is that okay with people or are people going to look at that and say no, we need that functionality. So either that means we Dump sql in favor of your entire language or we say okay, we're going to do sql plus something extra, right? We need to figure out what you know how that's going to look But I think at least having the list of semantical If that's a word the list of semantics that are available as well as the syntax associated with those semantics I think you know in side-by-side comparison will help you will make a decision So I think we need to take that. I think we need a clear Side-by-side list that we can look at Okay All right, anything else on this particular topic Okay, um of the other prs that are here Um lance, I don't think yours is ready based upon our previous discussion right? You and I are still going back and forth a little on possible wording there. Do you didn't want to Put on that today. Did you? No, I think we can Okay, um So very quickly this one This is in the scheme. Oh, this is in the schema registry. So so clements What do you think about this change? You don't sound sure That's that's that's correct Okay, so so yes that that was that was a typo and that should be we should merge that Okay, I don't know what's on the difference on the down here. Maybe it's a spaces thing or something Anybody have a problem with this? I mean, this isn't this in the scheme of its respect. So it's not in one of the One point no specs or anything anybody see a problem with this typo Any objection to approving even though it's technically um Relatively new pr Seems like an easy one Okay, um, wait Okay, then this one Okay, um, I can't remember what the person's name was here C pyrus. So He basically pointed out that um, it's not just the int part Of the json number. It's integer plus the optional prefix of the minus sign Is that sign right to people? Because I think even in our samples we talk we do talk about negative values being a valid integer Do people think this sounds right these two changes or do people need more time to think about it? I don't want to rush it, but Uh, I think it's right It seemed like an easy one to me. Yeah, it's true Yeah, it wouldn't break anything Okay, anybody have any concerns with that? I'll go so go ahead Shouldn't the json number already include the minus sign? I I assumed that was always the case. So no so I It's This issue was raised by one of my colleagues the c ps is one of my colleagues and um here We look together at this rc document and actually there it's um Uh separate so the the sign and the number uh listed separately. So if you just refer to this int component It's really without sign Without minus okay good All right, that makes sense. Yeah Okay, any objection to approving this one Okay, so tell you what this one was just opened yesterday. So what I'll do is I'll say it's conditionally approved and I'll get people through friday to To look it over Okay But it does seem like I'm very one very small in conditional Okay, cool. Other ones are still work in progress I think clemens you have the bottom two that are supposed to be worked on and there's some discussions going offline about this one So we'll talk about that So with that hold on a second here Sanjay you're still there Yeah, I'm here. Okay. I think I got everybody else Did I miss anybody for the attendee list? Okay, in that case if you're not interested in the discovery interop Uh discussions you're free to drop otherwise everybody else stick around please And have a good weekend everybody or actually have a good vacation. We'll see you back on january. What is it? 7th no 12 14. Sorry, january 14th Everybody I think It wasn't the data portion pr my pr that was approved. Oh crap. You're right. Sorry Thank you I have to go too, but let's all hope that 2021 is getting is going to be better you than this this one So before you drop, um What are microsoft's plans for the interop? Uh, yeah We have we have to do something we have to do something but it's uh, I'm I'm sitting on the critical path for that one And I've been I've been over overwhelmed and overstressed and over busy So, um hoping that we can that I can go and get something done in january Okay, so consider yourself nagged. There you go. Yeah, I know it's it's gonna it's it will get better in january because otherwise I'm just gonna go flip out Okay, in that case, um, have a good vacation Thank you Okay, so for the discovery stuff, I know, uh, scott isn't here um Remi dropped who Okay, hold on a second. Do I know Who else pseudo volunteered? I pseudo volunteered, but I have no updates. Sorry about that. Okay. Yeah, I don't Honestly, I don't have any updates either other than at least I I have an endpoint up and I'm waiting for someone else to put up their endpoint that I can talk to because, um Remi's endpoint was having issues scott's endpoint wasn't using valid url. So I have no one to test against Yeah, I just need to feel this week has been crazy. Okay Um, well in that case we can make this really quick by me asking the question does anybody have any updates or Comments or anything that they want to talk about it because I feel like at this point it's just a matter of people need to find a time to code this up or We need to actually be a little more explicit in terms of what we're going to be testing in terms of the interop flow You know, like which exact semantics we're going to be testing like are we going to test pagination and stuff like that And I was planning on taking some time to fill out this document a little more in terms of The exact features you want to support but since no one did any coding yet about the base Discovery spec itself. I figured I had time to wait a little bit So anybody have anything they want to say? Or question Okay In that case, I have one last thing. Sorry I Think I should have brought it into the community meeting But do you remember that there was this issue where we wanted to point out difference between? subscription config and protocol settings I took an ai didn't I Thank you. Hold on Well, there was That's the primer Is that the primer? Maybe it was where was it? There's something I don't remember It was a while ago If you can remember No, that wasn't it. No This looks like we're really far back. It could be two weeks from I mean two weeks before this one I guess so let's see. There's one There's two Then probably third, but not more than that, I guess It was an issue, isn't it? No, yeah Yep, outlining differences. There we go. Okay. So let me do this If it's up here that would nag me to do something because I took an ai to help you work on that Let's do this Okay, and we'll get back to that one Thank you for the reminder. Otherwise, I would have forgotten it completely Of course No. All right. Cool. Anything else? Any topics at all since we're just chilling now All right. In that case, we are done. All right. Everybody have a good vacation if you're taking one and we'll talk again on January 14th Yeah, I'll be holding this guys. Bye. Bye everybody Take care