Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

I'd still favour removing RxJava, if you would like to keep it then I 
guess the new module would indeed have to be introduced


Cheers, Sergey

On 06/02/18 03:49, John D. Ament wrote:

I was just about to remove the optional marking on reactive streams, and
noticed that rxjava was still around.  I guess it was decided to keep it?
I'll point out, this now makes the dependency chain even harder to follow
(since rxjava2 uses reactive streams, but rxjava does not).

John

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 6:53 PM 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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[John D. Ament]

I was just about to remove the optional marking on reactive streams, and
noticed that rxjava was still around.  I guess it was decided to keep it?
I'll point out, this now makes the dependency chain even harder to follow
(since rxjava2 uses reactive streams, but rxjava does not).

John

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 6:53 PM 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
>
>
>

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

In my defense I'd say neither Jersey nor Resteasy has as many many 
modules as CXF has, lol :-)


Sergey
On 16/11/17 13:55, Andriy Redko wrote:

+1 to that, also Jersey has RxJava and RxJava2 modules (at least for
the client side).

Thursday, November 16, 2017, 8:51:25 AM, you wrote:

SB> Hi Andriy

SB> Yeah, that is true. The only indirect reference to the fact CXF +
SB> RxJava1 might be combined somehow is that the initial RxJava1 code was
SB> added after a JIRA request was opened.
SB> By the way I've browsed around and found out ReastEasy friends have
SB> RxJava and RxJava2 modules :-).

SB> I guess the only prob with splitting it into tow modules in CXF is that
SB> CXF 3.2.1 is known to ship RxJava2 code in the cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx,
SB> so I guess it would have to be moved to cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx2, and I'd
SB> not be surprised if it would actually be noticed by CXF 3.2.2 users,
SB> given that users like trying newer things...

SB> So perhaps keeping things as is in 3.2.x is the best compromize

SB> Cheers. Sergey
SB> On 16/11/17 13:41, Andriy Redko wrote:

Let's do what is really the best for CXF in short term (long term is obviously
dropping RxJava 1.x). I saw and  still see RxJava 1.x in the field, BUT I 
haven't
seen the CXF + RxJava 1.x in use yet :) So my arguments are purely based on
assupmtions, not the real facts :-D



SB> It's obviously not only my decision what to do with this code, you are
SB> right it's only my opinion (which will stay non-binding) which is to
SB> keep where it is now just in case and drop it once the new master opens.



SB> To be honest, it does not matter much to me :-), so if few more PMCs say
SB> yes, def has to be a new module - then I'll give my +1 and move on, as I
SB> said purely from a tech point of view a dedicated module without
SB> optional deps is better.



SB> I'm simply hesitating, given how much effort went into dropping some old
SB> modules from 3.2.x, to start with another module with precisely 4 files
SB> (3 in .client subpackage, 1 in .server) with us (me definitely) unlikely
SB> contributing to it at this stage. I'd rather spend the limited amount of
SB> time I have now on growing the small (but with the prospect of growth)
SB> reactivestreams lib we've discussed with John which can be used by
SB> RxJava2 and Reactor code...




SB> Cheers, Sergey
SB> On 16/11/17 12:02, Andriy Redko wrote:

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 
*> 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, 

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Andriy Redko]

+1 to that, also Jersey has RxJava and RxJava2 modules (at least for
the client side).

Thursday, November 16, 2017, 8:51:25 AM, you wrote:

SB> Hi Andriy

SB> Yeah, that is true. The only indirect reference to the fact CXF + 
SB> RxJava1 might be combined somehow is that the initial RxJava1 code was 
SB> added after a JIRA request was opened.
SB> By the way I've browsed around and found out ReastEasy friends have 
SB> RxJava and RxJava2 modules :-).

SB> I guess the only prob with splitting it into tow modules in CXF is that 
SB> CXF 3.2.1 is known to ship RxJava2 code in the cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx, 
SB> so I guess it would have to be moved to cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx2, and I'd 
SB> not be surprised if it would actually be noticed by CXF 3.2.2 users, 
SB> given that users like trying newer things...

SB> So perhaps keeping things as is in 3.2.x is the best compromize

SB> Cheers. Sergey
SB> On 16/11/17 13:41, Andriy Redko wrote:
>> Let's do what is really the best for CXF in short term (long term is 
>> obviously
>> dropping RxJava 1.x). I saw and  still see RxJava 1.x in the field, BUT I 
>> haven't
>> seen the CXF + RxJava 1.x in use yet :) So my arguments are purely based on
>> assupmtions, not the real facts :-D

>> SB> It's obviously not only my decision what to do with this code, you are
>> SB> right it's only my opinion (which will stay non-binding) which is to
>> SB> keep where it is now just in case and drop it once the new master opens.

>> SB> To be honest, it does not matter much to me :-), so if few more PMCs say
>> SB> yes, def has to be a new module - then I'll give my +1 and move on, as I
>> SB> said purely from a tech point of view a dedicated module without
>> SB> optional deps is better.

>> SB> I'm simply hesitating, given how much effort went into dropping some old
>> SB> modules from 3.2.x, to start with another module with precisely 4 files
>> SB> (3 in .client subpackage, 1 in .server) with us (me definitely) unlikely
>> SB> contributing to it at this stage. I'd rather spend the limited amount of
>> SB> time I have now on growing the small (but with the prospect of growth)
>> SB> reactivestreams lib we've discussed with John which can be used by
>> SB> RxJava2 and Reactor code...


>> SB> Cheers, Sergey
>> SB> On 16/11/17 12:02, Andriy Redko wrote:
 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 
 *> 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 

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

Hi Andriy

Yeah, that is true. The only indirect reference to the fact CXF + 
RxJava1 might be combined somehow is that the initial RxJava1 code was 
added after a JIRA request was opened.
By the way I've browsed around and found out ReastEasy friends have 
RxJava and RxJava2 modules :-).


I guess the only prob with splitting it into tow modules in CXF is that 
CXF 3.2.1 is known to ship RxJava2 code in the cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx, 
so I guess it would have to be moved to cxf-rt-rs-extension-rx2, and I'd 
not be surprised if it would actually be noticed by CXF 3.2.2 users, 
given that users like trying newer things...


So perhaps keeping things as is in 3.2.x is the best compromize

Cheers. Sergey
On 16/11/17 13:41, Andriy Redko wrote:

Let's do what is really the best for CXF in short term (long term is obviously
dropping RxJava 1.x). I saw and  still see RxJava 1.x in the field, BUT I 
haven't
seen the CXF + RxJava 1.x in use yet :) So my arguments are purely based on
assupmtions, not the real facts :-D

SB> It's obviously not only my decision what to do with this code, you are
SB> right it's only my opinion (which will stay non-binding) which is to
SB> keep where it is now just in case and drop it once the new master opens.

SB> To be honest, it does not matter much to me :-), so if few more PMCs say
SB> yes, def has to be a new module - then I'll give my +1 and move on, as I
SB> said purely from a tech point of view a dedicated module without
SB> optional deps is better.

SB> I'm simply hesitating, given how much effort went into dropping some old
SB> modules from 3.2.x, to start with another module with precisely 4 files
SB> (3 in .client subpackage, 1 in .server) with us (me definitely) unlikely
SB> contributing to it at this stage. I'd rather spend the limited amount of
SB> time I have now on growing the small (but with the prospect of growth)
SB> reactivestreams lib we've discussed with John which can be used by
SB> RxJava2 and Reactor code...


SB> Cheers, Sergey
SB> On 16/11/17 12:02, Andriy Redko wrote:

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 
*> 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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Andriy Redko]

Let's do what is really the best for CXF in short term (long term is obviously
dropping RxJava 1.x). I saw and  still see RxJava 1.x in the field, BUT I 
haven't
seen the CXF + RxJava 1.x in use yet :) So my arguments are purely based on
assupmtions, not the real facts :-D

SB> It's obviously not only my decision what to do with this code, you are 
SB> right it's only my opinion (which will stay non-binding) which is to 
SB> keep where it is now just in case and drop it once the new master opens.

SB> To be honest, it does not matter much to me :-), so if few more PMCs say 
SB> yes, def has to be a new module - then I'll give my +1 and move on, as I 
SB> said purely from a tech point of view a dedicated module without 
SB> optional deps is better.

SB> I'm simply hesitating, given how much effort went into dropping some old 
SB> modules from 3.2.x, to start with another module with precisely 4 files 
SB> (3 in .client subpackage, 1 in .server) with us (me definitely) unlikely 
SB> contributing to it at this stage. I'd rather spend the limited amount of 
SB> time I have now on growing the small (but with the prospect of growth) 
SB> reactivestreams lib we've discussed with John which can be used by 
SB> RxJava2 and Reactor code...


SB> Cheers, Sergey
SB> On 16/11/17 12:02, Andriy Redko wrote:
>> 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 
>> *> 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.

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

It's obviously not only my decision what to do with this code, you are 
right it's only my opinion (which will stay non-binding) which is to 
keep where it is now just in case and drop it once the new master opens.


To be honest, it does not matter much to me :-), so if few more PMCs say 
yes, def has to be a new module - then I'll give my +1 and move on, as I 
said purely from a tech point of view a dedicated module without 
optional deps is better.


I'm simply hesitating, given how much effort went into dropping some old 
modules from 3.2.x, to start with another module with precisely 4 files 
(3 in .client subpackage, 1 in .server) with us (me definitely) unlikely 
contributing to it at this stage. I'd rather spend the limited amount of 
time I have now on growing the small (but with the prospect of growth) 
reactivestreams lib we've discussed with John which can be used by 
RxJava2 and Reactor code...



Cheers, Sergey
On 16/11/17 12:02, Andriy Redko wrote:

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 
*> 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







*

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Andriy Redko]

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 
 *> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

As I said, as far as CXF is concerned, there's no prospect of RxJava 
related code growing, and contributing to a CXF module noise to support 
a legacy library (I know I have to be careful now about the wording:-), 
I'm meaning here RxJava2 embracing org.ractivestreams) is not worth it IMHO.


If you check my earlier reply, I suggested to keep it where it is now 
after all. So if we have some users somewhere deciding to stay with 
RxJava then they'd have the support they need.


Cheers, SErgey
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 
*> 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







*

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Andriy Redko]

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"  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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

The problem is not about a new module, but about RxJava is a legacy lib, 
and having a module with 2/3 files with no prospect of going beyond this 
number is not worth it IMHO


Sergey

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"  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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Andrey Redko]

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"  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

>>>
>>
>>

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

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 
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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Andriy Redko]

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 
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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[Sergey Beryozkin]

Hi,

Indeed, creating a new module specifically for RxJava is technically 
clean, but creating it for a code which no one will probably use and 
also adding one module to the large number of CXF modules, with only 2/3 
Java files :-) is a bit problematic...


I guess I can keep it as is in 3.2.x but remove it once a new master 
opens...


Thanks, Sergey
On 15/11/17 16:04, John D. Ament wrote:

What about just leaving the old RxJava code in a module by itself (when I
was looking recently, it didn't make much sense to see both RxJava and
RxJava2 in one module).

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:56 AM Sergey Beryozkin 
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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

[John D. Ament]

What about just leaving the old RxJava code in a module by itself (when I
was looking recently, it didn't make much sense to see both RxJava and
RxJava2 in one module).

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 10:56 AM Sergey Beryozkin 
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
>