Fair enough, if we the new module is not a option (in your opinion), I would vote to remove the RxJava 1.x integration and dependency.
SB> As I said, as far as CXF is concerned, there's no prospect of RxJava SB> related code growing, and contributing to a CXF module noise to support SB> a legacy library (I know I have to be careful now about the wording:-), SB> I'm meaning here RxJava2 embracing org.ractivestreams) is not worth it IMHO. SB> If you check my earlier reply, I suggested to keep it where it is now SB> after all. So if we have some users somewhere deciding to stay with SB> RxJava then they'd have the support they need. SB> Cheers, SErgey SB> On 16/11/17 11:45, Andriy Redko wrote: >> Got it, so "legacy" part is questionable here. Check out the releases page, >> https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxJava/releases, the 1.x is still being >> actively >> supported and maintained (and there are reasons for that, as I >> mentioned). So >> it is really up to us to decide, should we support it or not, but with >> the new >> module we could get the stats and make the decision not based on >> "legacy" but >> if it is used or not. I don't have particular attachments to RxJava 1.x so >> if you are confident no one is relying on this integration, I would >> agree with >> you and we should better remove this code. >> >> *SB> The problem is not about a new module, but about RxJava is a legacy >> lib, >> SB> and having a module with 2/3 files with no prospect of going beyond >> this >> SB> number is not worth it IMHO >> >> SB> Sergey >> >> SB> On 16/11/17 11:15, Andrey Redko wrote: >>>> 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 >>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *
