Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

CDK Common Stored Data Type Model #247

Closed
1 of 7 tasks
MrArnoldPalmer opened this issue Aug 26, 2020 · 1 comment · May be fixed by NOUIY/aws-cdk-rfcs#14 or NOUIY/aws-cdk-rfcs#49
Closed
1 of 7 tasks

CDK Common Stored Data Type Model #247

MrArnoldPalmer opened this issue Aug 26, 2020 · 1 comment · May be fixed by NOUIY/aws-cdk-rfcs#14 or NOUIY/aws-cdk-rfcs#49
Labels
management/tracking status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale.

Comments

@MrArnoldPalmer
Copy link
Contributor

PR Champion
#

Description

While defining the CDK constructs for AppSync, it has become apparent that defining the "shape" of data that aws services interact with occurs in multiple places within CDK. Often times, it is useful for these services to be able to pass around and reference the type of data stored in another service.

If a user declares a type "Person", and that type is stored in a dynamo table, as well as is in the message body of an SQS queue, and declared within a graphql schema, a common data model would allow CDK to more intelligently construct references between the resources.

This is very similar to what Punchcard is doing. There is a common set of primitives like Type that can be extended. You can declare a dynamo db table with an instance of Type as well as a graphql type.

This obviously could be useful in a ton of services where data flows in/out with a known shape:
DynamoDB
RDS
SNS/SQS/Kinesis
ApiGateway
AppSync
StepFunctions

Progress

  • Tracking Issue Created
  • RFC PR Created
  • Core Team Member Assigned
  • Initial Approval / Final Comment Period
  • Ready For Implementation
    • implementation issue 1
  • Resolved
@mrgrain
Copy link
Contributor

mrgrain commented Oct 27, 2023

Marking this RFCs as stale since there has been little recent activity and it is not currently close to getting accepted as-is. We appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal. Marking an RFCs as stale is not a one-way door. If you have made substantial changes to the proposal, please open a new issue/RFC. You might also consider raising a PR to aws/aws-cdk directly or self-publishing to Construct Hub.

@mrgrain mrgrain closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Oct 27, 2023
@mrgrain mrgrain added status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale. and removed status/proposed Newly proposed RFC labels Oct 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
management/tracking status/stale The RFC did not get any significant enough progress or tracking and has become stale.
Projects
None yet
2 participants