> On Jan 19, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Markus KARG <markus_at_headcrashing.eu> wrote:
>
> Because in that "more complex" style you can write this then…
>
> Client rxClient = client.register(Java8.class); // i. e. technically a CompletionStageRxInvokerProvider, which effectively is part of JAX-RS!!!
>
> CompletionStage<UserPojo> cs =
> rxClient.target("http://foo.bar" <http://foo.bar/>)
> .request()
> .rx(CompletionStage.class)
> .get(UserPojo.class);
>
> …so the average programmer clearly understands that this will register Java 8 as one possible RX provider (possibly in addition to others), so he can get a CompletionStage. It feels just more correct and simple, particular for JAX-RS beginners.
Of course, but the point raised by Pavel is that this code again cannot (at least not obviously) be accepted by the Java type checker. Hence, the less desirable suggestion. Please read the rest of the e-mail thread.
— Santiago
> They will not understand why they shall repeat the provider again and again, and they will not understand why rx(T) will return not return T. But I think they will accept to repeat the stage again and again, as stages are not reusable (they are used to do that with stages already).
>
> -Markus
> <>
> From: Santiago Pericasgeertsen [mailto:santiago.pericasgeertsen_at_oracle.com]
> Sent: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 16:55
> To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> Subject: Re: [jax-rs-spec users] JAX-RS 2.1 - work schedule
>
> Hi Pavel,
>
> Just catching up with this issue. I guess the two levels of indirection has led us into a generic wall :)
>
>
>> Client rxClient = client.register(CompletionStageRxInvokerProvider.class);
>>
>> CompletionStage<UserPojo> cs =
>> rxClient.target("http://foo.bar" <http://foo.bar/>)
>> .request()
>> .rx(CompletionStage.class)
>> .get(UserPojo.class);
> So what if we reduce indirection and write:
>
> .rx(CompletionStageRxInvoker.class)
>
> as before, still keeping the provider for it? Less ideal of course.
>
> — Santiago