docs: add document for adding binding page

[mhmohona]

Description
Added Adding binding page.

It is a part of GSoD'23 project.

Related issue(s):
fixes #1713

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for shimmering-choux-eb0798 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	2ab0545
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/shimmering-choux-eb0798/deploys/65558a23ccacf40008df2a5f
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2042--shimmering-choux-eb0798.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[quetzalliwrites]

Let's focus on getting a technical review, we need to make sure the content is technically accurate ✌🏽

[quetzalliwrites]

good work so far, let's take it to the next level and get more feedback :)

[derberg]

Love the direction you took in this document.

Overall improvements:

• for diagrams I suggest using same shapes but with highlighting. I gave such feedback to @TRohit20 some time ago. Would be good to follow the same everywhere docs: tags in a AsyncAPI document #1957 (comment)
• There are also operation level bindings, you did not add them to document
• In Server there is wrong example, AMQP do not have server bindings
• In Message there is wrong example, you have Operation level bindings there
• Please make sure you follow correct indentation in yaml examples, amqp and others, are in the end objects, so related binding keys cannot be on the same level

All bindings are in https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings with examples. You can definitely pick different protocol examples per different bindings. I mean AMQP for channel but MQTT for server.

---

@alequetzalli if you remember, last year Nelson was working on Binding concept document but in the end it was not created. How is this document related to it? we will just have this one only right?

[derberg]

I made 3 comments but stopped further review

please look again at #2042. You have wrong examples. Always test examples with Studio, it supports 3.0 for very long, not preview but at least validation

[derberg]

there are 2 problems with this PR

• please discuss with other docs contributors in docs channel or your meetings consistency of your diagrams. Rohit for example starts in diagrams with asyncapiand sometimes asyncapi 3.0 while you do AsyncAPI Document. Also he makes lower case letters while you make all elements start with capital letters. This will make it harder with experience of the reader, where different docs have different approach to diagrams (same with diagram components shapes). Maybe you need to define some clear guideline? cc @alequetzalli
• your examples are basically not valid, you need to test them with studio, like first basic problem is that for servers you do url which is not there in the spec.

to get better examples, please go to https://github.com/asyncapi/bindings, probably clone so it is easier to navigate in vscode, and search for bindings with examples for given binding that you describe. For example Kafka has nice example for Server Bindings, and MQTT might be good for operation binding example. The more diverse examples (different protocols) the better. Remember to use next-major-spec branch

[derberg]

instead of making suggestions, I basically made change on my own f4dc937

• match text with examples
• remove http v2 example and replace with other protocol

I'm not sure about diagrams as your look different than https://github.com/asyncapi/website/blob/50e208bf1b20c8280993905a34931b4be6e0fb29/pages/docs/concepts/asyncapi-document/tags.md and I'm confused who is right (even colour do not match). Also asked for help in Slack -> https://asyncapi.slack.com/archives/C02QY9FMM18/p1699980537364299

[derberg]

diagrams look good to me.

@alequetzalli you can review and merge 💪🏼

@mhmohona congrats!!!

[quetzalliwrites]

/rtm