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

New L2 Construct for Step Functions Map State in Distributed Mode #487

Closed
3 of 11 tasks
beck3905 opened this issue Mar 10, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed
3 of 11 tasks

New L2 Construct for Step Functions Map State in Distributed Mode #487

beck3905 opened this issue Mar 10, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@beck3905
Copy link

beck3905 commented Mar 10, 2023

Description

Step Functions recently released capabilities for a Map state in DISTRIBUTED mode. This new capability comes with several new complex parameters. It seems that adding those parameters as options to the existing Map state construct would result in a pretty complicated UX. So I propose creating a new L2 construct with several supporting classes and interfaces for the various parameters of a Map state in DISTRIBUTED mode. This L2 construct would extend the existing Map L2 construct.

Roles

Role User
Proposed by @beck3905
Author(s) @beck3905
API Bar Raiser @MrArnoldPalmer
Stakeholders @alias, @alias, @alias

See RFC Process for details

Workflow

  • Tracking issue created (label: status/proposed)
  • API bar raiser assigned (ping us at #aws-cdk-rfcs if needed)
  • Kick off meeting
  • RFC pull request submitted (label: status/review)
  • Community reach out (via Slack and/or Twitter)
  • API signed-off (label api-approved applied to pull request)
  • Final comments period (label: status/final-comments-period)
  • Approved and merged (label: status/approved)
  • Execution plan submitted (label: status/planning)
  • Plan approved and merged (label: status/implementing)
  • Implementation complete (label: status/done)

Author is responsible to progress the RFC according to this checklist, and
apply the relevant labels to this issue so that the RFC table in README gets
updated.

@mrpackethead
Copy link
Contributor

@evgenyka , who is the bar-raiser?

@MrArnoldPalmer
Copy link
Contributor

@mrpackethead I am, taking a look at the proposal.

@awsmjs
Copy link
Contributor

awsmjs commented Dec 14, 2023

Closing this ticket. We believe the functionality is beneficial, but does not intersect with the core framework and should be vended and maintained separately.

@awsmjs awsmjs closed this as completed Dec 14, 2023
@mrgrain mrgrain added status/rejected and removed status/proposed Newly proposed RFC labels Dec 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants