Hey Sergey, I think the "ideal" in this case depends on whom to ask. For us - yet another module to support, for users - out of the box integration. With new module we could collect a bit more insights if people use it or not. No use - drop in next releases. Thanks.
Best Regards, Andriy Redko On Nov 16, 2017 4:42 AM, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andriy > > As I said, introducing a dedicated support for a legacy library in the > form of a new module would not be ideal IMHO > > Cheers, Sergey > On 15/11/17 23:53, Andriy Redko wrote: > >> Hey Sergey, >> >> That would be ideal I think (move RxJava into separate module). RxJava2 >> and >> RxJava are quite different frameworks, some people just stuck with RxJava >> so >> we could support them there. Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> Andriy Redko >> >> JDA> What about just leaving the old RxJava code in a module by itself >> (when I >> JDA> was looking recently, it didn't make much sense to see both RxJava >> and >> JDA> RxJava2 in one module). >> >> JDA> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:56 AM Sergey Beryozkin < >> sberyoz...@gmail.com> >> JDA> wrote: >> >> Hi >>>> >>> >> cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx ships the code for both (old) RxJava and RxJava2 >>>> code. It supports returning RxJava2 Flowable and Observable on the >>>> server and accepting it on the client, and the same for the (old) RxJava >>>> Observable... >>>> >>> >> While even the (old) RxJava code is very new for CXF, the reality is >>>> that RxJava has been around for a while now and with RxJava2 embracing >>>> org.reactivestreams, it's hard to see CXF users preferring to start with >>>> the (old) RxJava. >>>> >>> >> The other minor problem is that cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx has optional >>>> RxJava and RxJava2 deps to be able to ship the relevant code in the same >>>> module and splitting it into 2 modules will be too much at this point. >>>> >>> >> I suggest that unless some users confirm (I CC to the users) that they >>>> need to use the (old) RxJava code, then we just remove it and make >>>> things much simpler... >>>> >>> >> Thanks, Sergey >>>> >>> >> >>