Protobuf & JSONSchema support #50
Conversation
|
Good morning @tPl0ch Would it be possible to get a status update on this issue? And how we could help or what is needed to push this to a finished state. |
We did not wait for this package any longer and instead developed our own package to support the json schema registry. Our current plan is to open source our implementation some time in the future. But sure, I am in for any talk/discussions. |
|
@TheLevti may I ask what the reason was to build another library instead of contributing to this one? This question is not meant to be judgemental, but I am just curious if this is library is not approachable for others. |
We could not wait :). Also we checked our requirements and we just needed json schema registry implementation and thats what we did. As far as I understood, this library wants to add a general schema registry implementation for several formats. |
|
I understand that the problem is in the difficulty of understanding code of this library... I do not understand it yet. But I really need Protobuf. What is now in this branch how much usable? Can I implement own wrapper to serialize Protobuf, and use it for work with schemas? (Although it is obvious that the schema registry APIs are similar, and call the same REST APIs regardless of the schema type, and handle them the same way). |
Fixes #39 # Conflicts: # Makefile # composer.json # src/Constants/Constants.php # src/Registry/Decorators/CachingDecorator.php # src/Registry/GuzzlePromiseAsyncRegistry.php # src/Requests/Functions.php # test/IntegrationTest.php # test/Registry/GuzzlePromiseAsyncRegistryTest.php # test/Requests/FunctionsTest.php
|
@tPl0ch is there a discord or something where we can discuss this PR? As others have mentioned, this code base is difficult to dive into without some kind of guidance. It has been a few years and Protobuf support is a feature my team has been desperate to get implemented. |
Fixes #41