Hi Sergey,
please see inline.
On 16/02/2017 12:04, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> On 16/02/17 08:57, Pavel Bucek wrote:
>> Hi Sergey,
>>
>> Flow.Subscription is going away. That part of the API is a sample of
>> how things will look like when 2.1 is released - we will remove as
>> much as possible from Flow.*. If there is something which cannot be
>> removed (like Subscription), we'll consider the usecase (SSE in this
>> case) and copy it into JAX-RS somehow (SseSubscription).
>>
> Sorry, so Flow.Subcription can not be removed ? Or if it is going away
> and SseSubscription has been introduced, why did you decide to keep it
> in m04 ?
> When we discussed it with Andriy I thought the idea behind a new
> SseSubscription was to encapsulate the JAX-RS specific 'Flow'
> references from the rest of the API by inheriting from
> Flow.Subscription so that when Java9 is there and JAX-RS Flow
> eventually goes then the SSE API is not really affected. But I'm not
> sure I follow now what is the idea behind keeping both
> Flow.Subcription & SseSubscription in m04
I don't want to remove Flow.* yet, because it will be used in future
work, namely Non-blocking O/I.
The original intention (as stated when Flow introduction email was sent
to this list) was to keep it as long as possible but also with EDR
submission approaching, we wanted to see how some part of the API will
look when JAX-RS 2.1 is released. SseSubscription is one of the
outcomes, #subscribe(...) method and overloads on SseEventSource is
another outcome.
I guess I could apply the same pattern to the Broadcaster and EventSink
now and leave Flow unused (or remove it now); but what if we decide to
use different pattern when finalizing NIO support? Then the transition
will be even more difficult and would require more changes, since
finalizing NIO would change SSE as well..
>> I know that it feels odd (and it is) to have this done on part of the
>> API and not on another part, but it was part of the internal review
>> process and my arguments were ignored..
>>
> I've no problems with the internal reviewers having their input but
> I'd have problems with them, possibly not being JAX-RS 2.1 experts
> affecting how the final 2.1 API will look like. I'm not keen to make a
> big deal out of it, the proposed API in general is of high quality,
> but well, I guess the final details should be finalized
> in this group :-)
well.. we do code reviews and we are not going to change that. I
admitted that, but if I wouldn't (and now I'm thinking it was a
mistake), you don't have a chance to get that info.
The reviewer in this case was the original author of this part (and
others) of JAX-RS API, Marek. That was also communicated out to the EG,
see
https://java.net/projects/jax-rs-spec/lists/jsr370-experts/archive/2017-02/message/43
I always respond to any comment from the EG member, JCP member, random
users_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net mail, random tweet, etc. Everyone who wants
has the chance to influence the API. Of course, the feedback from the EG
has higher priority and importance. Also, please understand that we need
some feedback. It's hard to design things without a need to defend the
API. The process usually brings up other possible approaches, which is
what happened in the last case.
I hope you are not suggesting to make the process open exclusively for
EG members. If not, please let's drop this topic, it is not leading
anywhere.
Best regards,
Pavel
>> Is this clearer now?
> Getting there :-)
>
> Thanks, Sergey
>
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Pavel
>>
>>
>> On 15/02/2017 22:17, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> Hi Pavel
>>>
>>> The question from my colleague Andriy (more to come)
>>>
>>> Can you clarify why both Flow.Subscription and SseSubscription are
>>> both used interchangeably ?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Sergey
>>>
>>> On 15/02/17 15:47, Pavel Bucek wrote:
>>>> Dear experts,
>>>>
>>>> if you have any feedback for SSE, please provide it by the end of
>>>> this week, sooner the better.
>>>>
>>>> (it doesn't mean that feedback received afterwards won't be
>>>> evaluated; it's mainly about keeping the ball rolling).
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'd like to announce that Early Draft Review will be started
>>>> shortly afterwards. I believe we reached the point when we can say
>>>> that we have done some progress and we could use feedback from
>>>> wider group. EDR will hopefully help with that.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks and regards,
>>>> Pavel
>>>>
>>>
>>
>