Dec Kolakowski
Dec Kolakowski
@smoya Sorry for my slow reply. I think the examples are correct and there should be an option for users to configure `sqs: {}` to indicate the protocol for documentation...
@iancooper I think the primary example that's currently committed covers this. The need arises if you are using point to point SQS. When using a p2p queue you configure information...
Will current spec owners continue to manage their respective specs in the new codeowners? Or is the intention to remove the category entirely? Or just to introduce a “general” maintainer...
Hi @derberg Apologies for the slow reply. So to clarify, you would like V2 bindings entirely overwritten for V3 to master? And for a separate thread/PR to be raised on...
Hi @derberg I've updated this to be only V3 bindings.
I've also incremented the version. @derberg Not sure if this should be a major version change for V3? But the other bindings don't seem to have done a major version...
@jturek-olx @derberg I'll draft a new version that uses AsyncAPI V3. However, as we know that V2 is stilled being used widely I think we should keep the V2 bindings...
I've raised a PR for SNS: https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings/pull/260/files