+1 my thoughts exactly. --dave
Tyson Norris <[email protected]> wrote on 02/13/2019 04:28:35 PM: > > I agree the api_key is bad, when not using e.g. OW npm within the > action. +1 for using an annotation to enable this. > > activation_id is required to do the right thing for logging with > concurrency enabled - but I'm also not sure what risk it is to > include that? It will be in the response header anyways still right? > > Namespace + action - similar to activation_id, this is already > available to the client and may have some convenience for action > devs (especially with logging concurrent actiavitons __ ) > > From my perspective, I would just change the api_key to be > explicitly passed, and leave the rest as-is. >
