Clarify how to model streaming binary data#3729
Conversation
|
I have some concerns with this proposed change.
|
|
@mikekistler This change is only intended to address the binary case because that's the part that the TSC agreed on in June of 2018 as documented in the linked issue. I'm just trying to resolve old issues and adding a previously-approved TSC decision seemed straightforward. You can see that I'm addressing JSON Streaming in PR #3735, and if you want other types of streaming addressed please feel free to open an issue / PR. But at least with binary and JSON streaming, the concerns are very different. Adding the binary data streaming data to the data types section fits with adding binary handling to data types in general, which was already approved in PR #3187. If we're having a datatypes section about handling binary data, then I feel that the binary streaming should go with it. |
|
@mikekistler while I'd rather not move the section that's already there, if you think this new addition should be separate from it entirely, that would be different. I'm also happy to consider moving the section as a separate issue/pr from whether to add this part. (I realize that might not have been clear from how I'd worded it in my previous (now edited) comment). |
Co-authored-by: Ralf Handl <[email protected]>
|
@ralfhandl @mikekistler I added an explicit note about string data, made the whole thing a MAY, and did some other minor wording improvements. I did look at the Response Object section, as I'm feeling more persuaded by @mikekistler 's argument about placement the more I think about it. But there's really nowhere obvious to put it there. I think we can revisit this if we want to make a more comprehensive statement on streaming responses. |
Specifically, see #1576 (comment) for the TSC decision documented in this PR.
If this is accepted, I will add analogous information to 3.1.1 (after PR #3727 is resolved) and 3.2.0.