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 <drr...@gmail.com> 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 > > >
