Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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.

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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,

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

+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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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,

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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.

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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

Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one

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