search

asyncapi / spec

The AsyncAPI specification allows you to create machine-readable definitions of your asynchronous APIs.
https://www.asyncapi.com
Apache License 2.0
3.99k stars 261 forks source link

Server Object host field compatibility with protocols #1016

Open smoya opened 5 months ago

smoya commented 5 months ago

Recently we got a question in our Slack regarding a particularity on ibmqp binding. The question lead to checking that specifying a CCDT connection file should be possible in v3:

asyncapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: Test
  version: 0.1.0
servers:
  production1:
    host: 'http://my-ccdt-json-file/'
    protocol: ibmmq
  production2:
    host: 'file://myccdt.json/'
    protocol: ibmmq

As you can see, the host includes the protocol converting it to a URL, something I understand not expected in v3 or even somehow illegal. The URL in rendered docs look like ibmmq://http://my-ccdt-json-file/ and ibmmq://file://myccdt.json/ respectively.

The question is, should a URL be allowed as a value for the host field? The spec doesn't mention anything about. Not even a "the host field should not be a URL".

Whatever direction we take, we should clarify what the host is expected or not to include.

Slack thread: https://asyncapi.slack.com/archives/C0230UAM6R3/p1706705627052239

github-actions[bot] commented 1 month ago

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity :sleeping:

It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.

There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.

Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.

Thank you for your patience :heart:

smoya commented 3 weeks ago

cc @char0n @fmvilas @dalelane @GreenRover @derberg

fmvilas commented 3 weeks ago

Isn't it one of these cases where a subprotocol would work? For instance:

asyncapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: Test
  version: 0.1.0
servers:
  production1:
    host: 'my-ccdt-json-file/'
    protocol: ibmmq+http
  production2:
    host: 'myccdt.json/'
    protocol: ibmmq+file

To me, this is similar (if not the same) as with WebSocket + MQTT/STOMP/others.

We should probably define the meaning of this structure protocol[+subprotocol].