 You have sound. Hey John, how's it going? Yeah, it's going okay way way better than earlier in the week We can now mostly breathe without choking to that. Oh, so you must be in California. Yes. Yes Yeah, we were where I'm at we were over 400 in the air quality nastiness index ouch and so are you Bay Area or down south? Yeah, I'm in the Bay Area. Okay Are you are you like physically anywhere near the fires or is it just the smoke that's getting to you? Um, I'm I'm really close to my blood. So yeah, there were some of the fires here But they were relatively, you know, they weren't the huge ones But you know where the way the air patterns have been it'll settle in and then everything just fills up. So Not good. Hey Mattias But John I'm right though that um, the fires were all started because of Lightning right it's not like the normal brush fires or someone being careless with a match or something, right? No, it was hours of Of lightning which we we got what two two weeks ago almost two weeks ago. Yeah Interesting Yeah, we don't get in count. Oh, you know, we don't get that kind of lightning storm in california very often So, you know, it's weird because it's like out here in north carolina, you know, we get you know lightning storms and stuff It's always accompanied by rain. So the idea of that a lightning strike can cause a fire from It's just kind of weird Yep All right. Hey clemens Hello And hey, tommy We have a very short agenda today That's great Yeah, I wouldn't mind eating lunch to be honest. So, you know Yeah, I don't like waiting till 2 p.m. Eastern today lunch. It's not fun. I get really grumpy then Hey, david Oh, good morning. If I could type your name, right? And ray Hello, hello Let's see Eric you there Oh, dog Hello Ann ginger Yes, I'm here. Hi, dog. Hello. Good morning Uh, klaus Yes, I'm here. Hi, dog. Hello Scott I wasn't sure if you're gonna bail out of the toc call or not. I assume they're still going Yeah All right, whoops ryan. Are you there? Yes, hello So just a heads up It's very possible the next Thursday. I may not be able to make the first 30 minutes of the call And so mark will be running it. So you get the joy enjoy him for a change Morning, lance Hello Hello Why since everybody's so early, maybe we should start at two after instead of three Hi, brane Hello, Doug Hi, sam Sam, are you there? What about christoph? Hi, how are you? Hello, good. All right, nick. Are you there? Hey, Doug Anybody have any exciting plans for the weekend? Are we waiting? I haven't thought about the coming weekend yet to have to say Far away Oh It's one of those we the air is getting better in colorado. So I'm gonna go outside I assume that you're getting california air We had our own wildfires as well. Oh, did you? Oh, that's not good. You Okay I feel like somebody joined that I'm missing them I guess not. Okay, let's get started It's actually last chance. Sam, are you there? Okay. Let's see Okay, community time anything from the community that people want to bring up. That's another agenda All right, coup con north america still looking for volunteers Just a reminder Okay sdk We had one call last week. I can't remember for sure what we talked about Anybody from the sdk team want to mention anything for the group to think about or to know about? Okay, not hearing anything We do have a call right out to this one to talk about the interop discovery stuff I don't think anything's really changing the doc since last week, but we can talk about it I don't think we've actually had a formal discussion on the doc yet So we'll do that right after this call I don't see tumor. So nothing from the workflow group So okay before we jump into the one pr that we have is there anything on the agenda people like to bring up Before we get the prs All right in that case scott, would you like to talk us through this poor request you have? Sure, this is the the result of the discussion from last week around dropping the types endpoint And then The other change It was It was claus had an interesting idea to change types inside of services to events Which then To remove the stutter inside of the type object from Did I miss one? Oh, yeah. I don't know what we changed it back. So instead of So it used to be types and type which is weird because it's the type of the type instead of Uh Now what it could be is it's this list of events and the event has a type which makes sense again And doesn't stutter. So I think this was pretty good compromise And so here's the pr, okay Uh, just to make you sure anything else. Okay. I think that was it. There was one question Um, oh, yeah, you would remove this section or this uh What's it called? Uh use case Yeah, I removed an endpoint that implemented that that question Or that answer to the question Okay, and there's one little typo you can just put aside from that Any questions or comments for scott in particular claus? Did you do anything you'd like to add? No, um, so Maybe the the second use case was about Getting a list of all available types. So for me the most important part is um, if I already know a type Where can I get it or? Yeah, from which services do I get it? So it's not exactly that use case that was listed here, maybe Okay Yeah, I think that use case gets uh re-introduced when we add the uh The the higher fidelity searching Yes I would agree Okay Any other questions or comments on this one then and thank you scott for doing this No concerns no questions Any objection to approving them? All right. Thank you scott. I think that's actually going to really clean things up quite a bit. So that's really good. Thank you Okay, um, I know jim has started to work on his protobuf stuff, but unfortunately he can't make the call this week um But he actually may be looking to do a dedicated phone call. Um Just let you guys know that that may be coming up And that's actually it our entire agenda today. Um Is there anything else people would like to bring up? I'm brian. Are you trying to say something? Uh, yeah, I'm just curious where that call will get advertised. So I don't accidentally miss it Yeah, I don't know. Uh, I you can assume that At least the slack channel. Um, but I'll also try to make sure he sends out a note to the mailing list That's awesome. Thank you. Yep, and it may not happen. It was just a I think a thought that he had Okay, uh lance your hands up Um, yeah, we don't need to discuss it here unless people really want to but I I posed a question in the cloud event slack channel And I'd appreciate some feedback if anyone Uh is interested in that Um, what is it? Yeah, did since we're off any other topics you want to just quickly mention what it is. Okay. Yeah, um in the javascript stk Uh, we are currently pretty strict about validating events And in fact, you can't create an invalid event if you try to it throws an exception in the constructor Um, we're looking at having a boolean value As a parameter to the constructor that tells it to be, you know, strict or loose And there's some debate over whether or not it would make the most sense from the stk perspective to Have the default be strict or the default be loose validate or no validation basically And I'm just curious what other stks are doing What are you what are you, uh What are you validating what's so are you validating whether all the fields have the right types? We're validating everything that we can Per the spec. So basically all of the required fields are there Uh, and whether or not the types for the the required fields are correct Whether or not the names for the extensions conform to the specification Whether or not the values for the extensions conform to the specification So but but you can add whatever you like in terms of extra extensions You can add whatever you like in terms of what I'm sorry. I missed that And you can add extra extra fields per the extension model Yes, yes, yeah, well then then I think what you're doing there is to Ensure that you have a valid cloud event And I think the the other most of the other stks are solving that by ways of using the languages type model and I think in javascript you're in the place where You are dealing with a bit of a weaker type model So I don't think it's wrong to go and and and do strict validation But I would do that as the as the default Yeah, the the type If you're using typescript, um, that actually does help some of that. Yeah, yeah, of course Um with the wild west of typing in in javascript as it is um, I think it's it's it's good hygiene to go and make sure that What what you're composing is Uh a valid cloud event and not just some something it looks like it Right. I I tend to agree. I guess my concern is that uh You know when I think about friction that developers might have when they first pick this stuff up um, they may not realize that the default is strict and uh, they may you know malform an event and uh throw it to the sdk and You know like get really frustrated Yeah, but that's okay. It's okay for them to be frustrated because the point of this whole whole exercise that we're doing here is interoperability So allowing them to create effectively garbage on the wire is Not the point of what we're doing this Right. Well, I mean We would still have a validate capability, right? You would still be able to validate the function. I mean validate the event um, and I think it also um I hear you. I'm just going to play the devil's advocate a little bit. Um, uh, it uh In a scenario where you're just receiving events Um, and you don't know exactly where those events are coming from or what the what systems are generating those events that those systems could be generating Events that don't conform to the specification Should it be that you? are You know just by default gonna throw an exception every time you try to receive one of those events over Let's say HTTP so there there I use there I follow the The smart eternal guidance of sam ruby and say Be lenient in what you accept be strict in what you sent Which means if you're parsing in a cloud event, then you should do the best you can to go and make make sure that you Can fit that into your data structure But if you creating a cloud event then that cloud event should be Precise as it goes on the wire So receiving so with receiving when you just parsing something comes off the wire. I think there's um You can be a little bit more flexible And in the javascript world for instance There is Like if you parse a date for instance, there's obviously smart libraries they go can do can go and take multiple formats And maybe you you don't want to have You don't impose that the time zone offset, etc. I mean there's all kinds of all kinds of weird things that people can do so Not necessarily reject an event that you can go and interpret, but I would be very strict in things that are going out And Scott your hands up We we talked about this but um in an sdk call several months ago for the go sdk because uh in go it's you can You can have direct access to the struct similar to how javascript works and so Um in go you you can construct an invalid cloud event up, but um So there's there's a couple layers the the client layer won't send It won't send an invalid cloud event. It it calls a validation method It double checks all the fields it double checks all the extension names It double checks that everything can turn into a string the correct way, etc at the at the binding layer We don't do that validation because it's uh, it's low level plumbing And so you you could work around the the sdk and send garbage on the wire if you really want it to but the event knows it's bad and it It I don't know what will happen exactly for for certain cases. We're missing required fields for there Um Okay, that's interesting. I mean so, uh You know receiving a cloud event in the javascript sdk is just calling the cloud event constructor And so from what I'm hearing it seems like receiving an event. It should be loose. Maybe when you're actually just creating an event Uh, you know raw or whatever It should be strict or another option would be to have it Be sort of loose or no validation upon creation But if you wanted to transform the event into a message To send uh over the wire at that transformation point it would be validated Yeah, that's what we're doing just because like there are cases where somebody wants to make a factory of cloud events and a They construct an archetype and then they mutate the some inner data But like technically it's not the valid to have a cloud event that doesn't have an id but There's some magic in the cloud the go lang sdk that will On its way through the client if the id is Empty it'll generate a uid for you and decorate that and send it out For marshaling json back into a cloud event It'll try its best if it finds json That thing could end up not being a valid cloud event you get back a thing It it's populated with everything we know about because of json But then you can call validate on it and it'll return you back all the reasons why it's broken okay Any other comments for lance? All right. Thank you lance. Thanks everyone. Yeah All right, any other topics people want to bring up Sanjay, did you want to mention something about your query thing or take that offline? I was just checking last time We were talking about that like clause and I had posted something on the chat, but I don't know if that was lost it was referring to something from graph ql and I don't know if we closed that issue No, I don't think we closed any issues. I did grab some of the comments from Or was it was it this one? I thought I thought Yeah, so I did grab some of the comments from last week. I may have missed yours Could you add your comment then to 686? Yeah, I will do that Okay, thank you. Let me paste a link into the chat that way you can add it there since that seems to be where the discussion is happening Okay Any other topics then? Okay, so um I guess the the general comment I should probably make is Please look through Obviously the the specs If you want to open up prs against them because we need things to work on obviously your next week's call But in particular look at the open issues for discovery more than anything else. We have quite a few open And they're obviously then begging prs to be written against those So please if you have time to work on those because if we don't get new prs It's going to be another quick phone call And we want to keep making forward progress Yes, sir There you go Thank you comments At least fake listening to me. I appreciate that actually I guess one other thing. Um, so brian you said that The last week and this week the aspect ratio of my screen looks kind of funky now I did join through another computer It looks okay to me Is anybody else seeing like a squished version of my shared screen or was it just brian? I have issues. Is it very funky? So what what do I need to do to fix that? Do I need to make it bigger like like this or what what what would fix it? Yeah This is better interesting. Okay Expand to meet their window instead of show the native Aspect ratio of your screen So I tried it both ways and it looked squished both ways for me in the view options huh Well, there's zoom has several view options. There's the hostile takeover of your computer mode Where are these options? I'm trying to see where there's Um It's an under a view options up by where your Top header is but if you're sharing you might you might not be able to see it. Yeah, how far is I'm looking at my other computer I said on my other computer. I see Choose. Oh, maybe you think it's me again. Maybe it's not a good choice So we just got are you saying that this is a user error on brian's part or or something I should be doing at my side Their side on the client because it looks fine over here. Although. It's not as good as when clemen shares Yes, I know he had a spectacular monitor. Yes I've got two view options here fit to window and original size and both of them looked squished before you made your window wider duck okay Well, it's maybe that client problem Okay, well either way it sounds like I should make it bigger no matter what Because you're you're happy with this size right here, right? Yeah, this looks great. Okay It's just a boatload of extra space on the left and right for me, but that's okay. Oh, I'll deal with it Okay All right Wonder whether you can split whether you can share all the monitors at once All monitors. I don't know anything. Do I even want to do that? I can share the whole monitor actually, okay hold on a sec since we're Obviously bored out of our minds here. Hold on a sec If I do this I got stuff to do Doug What do you come on me? Okay, just just indulge me for one more second here Scott. What does this look like to you, Brian? Uh, this also looks good. Although now there's even more dead blue space off to the right, but correct. Yes because that's showing my whole screen. So yeah, I think I do that but then The text is the same size right or is the text not as squished anymore It wasn't squished before Yeah, the text is a lot smaller now for me Is it? Yeah Now you have to change the zoom level of Google Docs You guys forget this You could always window because you could not have those problems. Yeah. Okay. I'm gonna I'll So so ginger you said it was squished for you are that the font was squished. What does this look like to you? It wasn't squished it's just smaller Interesting. So I like your original it was never squished for me. It was perfectly fine for me And like my view options. I have a whole bunch. I don't just have to I had like fit to window 50 original size and then I'll go up to 300 Yeah, this must just be a like web client deficiency in that case If this works best for most people like this is perfectly readable for me. It just looks a little funny. So Uh, I I guess we stick with this in that case. Okay All right, Brian what what browser are you using? I'm using chrome Okay Okay, I don't want to upset Scott too much. So thank you for the diversion Um, okay before we let everybody go and we jump over to the uh, to the interrupt stuff Let me just do a couple things. How many are you there? I am here. Excellent. And what about sam? I'm here. Excellent. Thank you. Did I miss anybody for attendance? Oh Vaibhav Yeah, I'm here. Okay. Thank you. All right anybody else Okay, in that case if you have no interest in talking about the discovery interrupt stuff You may go and have a good rest of your day We'll give everybody about a minute or so to to leave if they want and then we'll get started So thank you everybody Hey, sorry, Doug the discovery interrupt stuff. Is that specific to stks? No Well No No, it's just about interrupt testing the discovery and I don't think any SDK is doing anything with discovery yet Okay, so, um I did put this document out there. I think almost two weeks ago, but we haven't had a chance to talk about it yet on any phone call Does anybody have any Comments on this in terms of whether the overall direction seems to be okay so far Or anything they want to change Okay, um, obviously as I mentioned last time, I do think we need to fill out more information here But is there enough for people to actually start coding against it? Are there particular things that we need to talk about Now or is it just a matter of people finding time to start coding and finding gaps? Oh, you have a similar effort on the subscription and the schema registry like yet because I think I am Personally super excited to see those those things come together Yeah, so am I Will this force it to some extent scott? Yeah a little bit. I mean so like one example is the discovery api Leverages the subscription api and the subscription api can leverage the Um, the registry to validate that You know the shape of events Are are correct Correct Yeah, so for um Um, I really want us to so on the microsoft side to do work on this on the intro of things It's just that right now. I don't get enough people around the table before labor day because Right now everybody seems to be on vacation Yeah, I was kind of assuming it was either people are overloaded or on vacation with the two Well, yeah, it's both How will we do like This scenario looks fine, but let's Let's look like let's think about um introducing the other apis into a holistic setup So there's like this is the mbp scenario. We're focusing on discovery We should mix in subscription api and then once that's working we should add a consumer that validates that the producer actually is sending events that are In line with what the discovery api is doing What it subscribed to and the shape from the schema registry or something Okay Sounds reasonable. Is that something you could add to the document? Yeah, I can I can take a look at that. Okay. Thank you But I'm you know like I'm I'm suggesting a an evolution of the scenario instead of a rewrite once we introduce all the other The other apis we're working on Sounds good to me Anybody else want to chime in nacho Hey folks, sorry to join late a So I basically added myself there as interested participant I would definitely start looking at this more closely on the k native side It's probably starting next week and what I think Scott just mentioned of trying to Tie these things together like discovery with subscription with the schema registry That's something that was on my mind and I was starting to build a prototype Using sort of the k native primitives And build these apis on top of that So I think we can make some progress on this and I'm happy to help as well That'd be great. Thank you Okay, anything else Okay, so then I guess the next steps on this is I guess Scott you're going to make some modifications to the doc itself But is there anything else we need to do other than just people need to find time to start coding this I just want to make sure that no one feels like they're blocked my pr that got merged or approved today I have to make that typo correction that can merge and then we can code against that Cool Yeah, oh, yeah, and thank you for reminding me. I won't I won't merge your pr until you do the typo I completely forgot. Thank you for reminding me Okay In that case, I think I'm sorry was someone else clemens Okay, in that case, I think we're done record time. All right. Yeah Okay. Thank you everybody. We'll talk again next week. Okay. Bye. Have a good one. Bye