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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
