Well known issue :)) It is easy to add something to open source project and really hard to remove :)))) you can start a VOTE :))))
On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Christian > > Thanks, I'd rather just remove it, but given that RxJava was introduced on > the user request, I guess we may as well keep it for a bit after all. > Once the code makes it into CXF it then becomes tricky to remove it :-) > > Sergey > On 15/11/17 16:09, Christian Schneider wrote: > >> +1 >> for removing the old rxjava support >> >> I would also be fine with it living in a separate module. >> >> Christian >> >> 2017-11-15 16:56 GMT+01:00 Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com>: >> >> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
