Re: [VOTE] CXF 3.2.2

+1 On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Dennis Kieselhorst wrote: > +1 >

Re: [VOTE] CXF 3.2.2

+1 － Freeman(Yue) Fang Red Hat, Inc. FuseSource is now part of Red Hat > On Feb 3, 2018, at 3:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote: > > This is a vote to release CXF 3.2.2. We’ve fixed over 60 JIRA issues, > definitely time to release it. This also includes releases

Re: How to use rx() with proxy clients?

Yes, treating it like a MBR would work. However, there needs to be a way as you mention to make it go async. I'm more trying to see if this is already supported somehow. There's a few ways I could see executor working: - when building the proxy, include an executor() method (I think this is

Re: How to use rx() with proxy clients?

Why not using the response type? It is not hard to detect it is a CompletionStage and therefore call rx(). Side note: if there is an Executor param it should be forwarded/configured IMHO. Le 4 févr. 2018 20:49, "John D. Ament" a écrit : > So far, it looks like proxy

How to use rx() with proxy clients?

So far, it looks like proxy clients don't support rx() invocations. I do see rx() methods within WebClient that would allow its use, but I don't see a straight forward way that those methods could be invoked within a proxy. It could be that a custom annotation is used, indicating the response

Re: Reactive Streams dependency in Project Reactor module

Well, now that I understand that it was meant specifically for client only (its kind of odd, because JsonStreamingAsyncSubscriber is really for subscribers, which is more on the server produced response). What if we just had distinct modules for reactive-client and reactive-server? But either

Re: Reactive Streams dependency in Project Reactor module

The same though applies to the client code - it makes no sense on the server side, so may be it is just simpler to make that dep non-optional for the consistency purpose, up to you guys... Sergey On 04/02/18 18:57, Sergey Beryozkin wrote: You've already concluded it is a bug... I recall now,

Re: Reactive Streams dependency in Project Reactor module

You've already concluded it is a bug... I recall now, I made it optional because that code makes no sense on the client side only, while the reactive streams api is also pulled from the reactor dep... Cheers, Sergey On 04/02/18 18:12, Andriy Redko wrote: Same conclusion, it shouldn't be

Re: Reactive Streams dependency in Project Reactor module

Same conclusion, it shouldn't be optional/provided. Thanks for spotting it. Best Regards, Andriy Redko JDA> That's what I'm asking basically. If you look at JDA> https://github.com/apache/cxf/blob/master/rt/rs/extensions/reactor/pom.xml#L47-L49 JDA> I JDA> don't believe it should be

Re: Reactive Streams dependency in Project Reactor module

That's what I'm asking basically. If you look at https://github.com/apache/cxf/blob/master/rt/rs/extensions/reactor/pom.xml#L47-L49 I don't believe it should be provided/optional. On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 12:49 PM Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Why should be optional ? > >

Reactive Streams dependency in Project Reactor module

Hi, As far as I can tell, the dependency on reactive streams isn't optional in the project reactor module. I'm wondering, was this just a typo, or am I missing something? John