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
My company is considering using OpenRPC for one of our JSON RPC servers, but that server supports messages that initiate from the server to the client over web socket. This would require an update to the spec (or an extension of the specification using the method described here).
If we were interested in proposing an update to the spec to support this use-case, after testing it out using an extension, how would we go about doing that? Just opening up a PR? Or is there a forum where discussing these specification changes would be better?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Just a heads up we're working on making the extension spec more feasable, where there's a roadmap to making and testing your own custom extensions. There's a PR in open-rpc/schema-utils-js#853 that I've picked back up to complete.
So changes are a coming ,also for reference can you elaborate a little bit more on what issue you're hitting ? I'm a bit unsure of the flow that's causing you an issue here.
Interesting! The issue is just being able to support messages that initiate from server to client over websocket. Currently, I don't see that as being defined within the spec (although I may be blind).
In general, though, if we were interested in contributing to the spec, how would we go about doing that?
My company is considering using OpenRPC for one of our JSON RPC servers, but that server supports messages that initiate from the server to the client over web socket. This would require an update to the spec (or an extension of the specification using the method described here).
If we were interested in proposing an update to the spec to support this use-case, after testing it out using an extension, how would we go about doing that? Just opening up a PR? Or is there a forum where discussing these specification changes would be better?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: