feature request: working draft for cloudevents spec#8768
Open
allen-munsch wants to merge 3 commits into
Open
Conversation
duglin
reviewed
Nov 12, 2025
duglin
reviewed
Nov 12, 2025
duglin
reviewed
Nov 12, 2025
duglin
reviewed
Nov 12, 2025
duglin
reviewed
Nov 12, 2025
duglin
reviewed
Nov 12, 2025
jskeet
reviewed
Dec 4, 2025
Author
|
Thank you both. I saw your reviews and iterated on the draft, sticking to the extensions approach.
Let me know if this addresses your concerns. |
jskeet
reviewed
Dec 9, 2025
jskeet
reviewed
Dec 10, 2025
jskeet
left a comment
jskeet
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Cracking - I don't think I have any more comments. Looks good.
jtdavis777
reviewed
Dec 11, 2025
|
any update on this one? |
Author
looks like the CLA CI/CD is broken? also, just an FYI, been using the proposed spec at work, it's been a very good in the use cases edit: i added a link back to the Draft PR: cloudevents/spec#1373 in the PR description above |
|
@allen-munsch go ahead and squash the PR and remove me from the commits - I think that'll fix the CLA checker |
|
And rebase too |
Update docs/source/cloudevents_spec.md remove redundant (required) fix typo ExtensionAttributes Address jskeet and duglin review feedback - Add type field to ExtensionAttributes table for transcoding support (jskeet) - Document valid type values: Boolean, Integer, String, Binary, URI, URI-reference, Timestamp - Add extension serialization rules table in Section 2.4 - Clarify envelope schema must be pre-shared; dataschema applies to payload only (duglin) - Simplify Section 3 per jskeet suggestion: data stored as [ubyte], consult datacontenttype adds enum for extensions type add clarity on which attributes per jtdavis777's comment Signed-off-by: allen-munsch <[email protected]>
Author
|
@duglin ah yep, done |
Author
|
merged master |
Does this mean we're close? |
Author
|
@dbaileychess is this one getting warmer? or colder? |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The following is a draft PR to discuss adding a CNCF CloudEvents specification for flatbuffers.
References:
feature request: support for flatbuffers cloudevents/spec#1372My original use case was to use flatbuffers in a zero copy pass through proxy in a low latency environment.
Edit (adds draft PR link):