[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1214?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17216012#comment-17216012
]
Aleksandar Vidakovic commented on FINERACT-1214:
------------------------------------------------
[~vorburger] I agree with your assumptions about the average Joe developer.
RxJava has actually quite a bit of a learning curve until you can get really
productive.
But: it's really easy now to create multiple "SDKs" and then we can let people
choose what they want/need. And for us it's not really more work.
> SDK Swagger Client Java API methods returning Rx Observable are not intuitive
> for Java developers
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: FINERACT-1214
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FINERACT-1214
> Project: Apache Fineract
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Michael Vorburger
> Priority: Major
>
> I am, for the first time, attempting to fool around with our shiny new SDK
> Client Java API, for FINERACT-1209.
> I've noticed that we have configured all the service methods to returned Rx
> Observable. I'm aware of what that is, and perhaps I'm just too old and
> grumpy, but I'm not sure I like that... and am concerned that average Joe
> Java develpers using this SDK may get confused by it.
> Isn't the reality that in many many typical usages folks would just always do
> {{.blockingSingle()}} anyway? And even if we went all-in reactive in our
> SDK... A REST API call doesn't really return a _Stream_ - so the API as-is
> doesn't seem natural, to me.
> Should we go mad and build and publish SEVERAL Fineract SDK Swagger Client
> Java API libraries? io.reactivex for anyone smoking that, good ol' plain
> simple non-reactive, modern Java 11, older Java 6, 7 AND 8 (Android?)... the
> more the merrier?!
> [~aleks] [~ChinmayKulkarni] [~ptuomola] [~manthan]
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
