Replies: 2 comments 4 replies
-
I welcome the idea of being able to describe If the intended use case is primarily to define how the server-side works and how automated tests and such can verify its behavior, then I think the current direction is great. However, if the intention is that clients are supposed to hard-code every expectation described in My use case of Allowing for such loose coupling between request URI, request body and response would give the server the ability to change the order of requests and responses, as well as which URIs the client should interact with, without the client having to change a single thing. This would allow for the client to become truly stateless and event-driven, only reacting to the responses it receives from the server and performing the next possible requests as described in the response. This would make the client more robust. What I would like hardcoded in the client are only the names of possible There's still one more level of decoupling possible here by making |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
(I will expand on these on Monday but wanted to get some notes down.) The use-cases I have considered so far are:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
At the April 13, 2022 meeting of the SIG-Workflow Steering Committee, it was requested that the community share Use Cases of workflows to consider for the initial draft proposal (here).
Please provide examples and considerations in this discussion thread, please provide as much information as possible to help guide the discussions.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions