You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Welcome to AsyncAPI. Thanks a lot for reporting your first issue. Please check out our contributors guide and the instructions about a basic recommended setup useful for opening a pull request. Keep in mind there are also other channels you can use to interact with AsyncAPI community. For more details check out this issue.
It works, but extending it with new protocols support - well, not the best.
I personally do not want to invest much in this template anymore. As core maintainer of AsyncAPI Generator I'm investing my time in new approach in generator, where core community supported templates will be part of generator: https://github.com/asyncapi/generator/tree/master/packages
My main focus is clients, but first is websocket as I have more use cases for it, and also there are many public websocket APIs to play with. This doesn't mean we cannot onboard other clients sooner, just need people willing to help.
So my answer is, yes, Google Pub/Sub 100%, but really not here in my opinion.
Now question is, how much are you interested in it, and what are your deadlines, do you want to join as contributor or maybe your company wants to support development?
Btw, we will have the AsyncAPI conference in Munich in July (APIDays again hosts our community for free) and I plan to be there to MC it. I recommend you subscribe to https://www.asyncapi.com/en/newsletter where we will announce free tickets for our community once we get them.
Why do we need this improvement?
It would be great if the generator would also support generating Google Pub/Sub clients.
How will this change help?
It would allow to use the Async API schema with Google Pub/Sub, because without a client generation the hurdle is very high to adopt the schema.
Screenshots
No response
How could it be implemented/designed?
I looked at the source code, but did not really find the point where the provider specific logic is implemented.
🚧 Breaking changes
No
👀 Have you checked for similar open issues?
🏢 Have you read the Contributing Guidelines?
Are you willing to work on this issue?
None
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: