cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergey Beryozkin <sberyoz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Remove obsolete RxJava code and keep RxJava2 only one
Date Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:53:41 GMT
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" <*sberyozkin@gmail.com <mailto:sberyozkin@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 <
> *>>>> sberyozkin@gmail.com <mailto:sberyozkin@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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *

Mime
View raw message