I think we need first entry in not yet existing AsyncAPI glossary #982
Replies: 4 comments 6 replies
-
Yeah, I like the |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I think of it as a JSON/YAML file so I always refer to it as an AsyncAPI file but I think I like the AsyncAPI definition better. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
In case it's helpful, I'll crosslink JSON Schema's "TODO list" for our own glossary -- it's here: https://github.com/json-schema-org/community/issues/199 and the live version of what's done so far is here: https://json-schema.org/learn/glossary.html If I can throw in a random note, I think it's super useful if whatever is used for the glossary is usable in downstream docs -- in other words, if I write an AsyncAPI implementation and I use the term "AsyncAPI instance", how easy is it for me to interlink to the upstream glossary's definition of that term. @philsturgeon also just linked https://github.com/openapi-contrib/glossary in a call, which is one OpenAPI has. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
We did not get to many answers on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AsyncAPISpec/status/1575121084420169728 In a few weeks, we need to try again, with a different message and probably different options. I guess we should explore |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I continuously find myself struggling when thinking about docs and how to write about AsyncAPI.
there are different forms that we use here and there. I think we will never be able just to have one (I might be wrong) but we need some official guidelines, to make review/writing easier, and have a reference guideline when taking care of consistency in docs.
different ways we talk about and could talk about AsyncAPI:
AsyncAPI
,AsyncAPI specification
and shorterAsyncAPI spec
- this one is easy, as it is about specification itself, and I think all versions are ok 🤷🏼but what when we talk about the AsyncAPI that was created by the user, according to
AsyncAPI specification
?different options:
AsyncAPI file
- makes sense, but it is not always a file 😄AsyncAPI specification file
- I think even more confusing than aboveAsyncAPI instance
- yeah, tbh I never used it, it makes sense, butinstance
is rather used when you talk about instance of a service, or something like thatAsyncAPI definition
- I like itAsyncAPI contract
- makes sense, but do people think about AsyncAPI as a contract? I think we all wish they have, but it is not a caseAsyncAPI document
- I think it is the most widely used. Even in existing AsyncAPI docs definitely. But I know some folks do not like this, as this is kinda suggesting AsyncAPI is for documentation only (I personally do not agree with such statement)Let the academic dispute begin 😆
Again, I do not think there is one perfect name that we can use. More important is to pick something, and stick to it and be consistent, even if we end up with choosing
AsyncAPI declaration
😆Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions