You misunderstood my question. I am very fond of an RX API. My question is, did we decide that we want to support pluggable RX implementations, or ain't it better from the view of a _standard_ to stick with CompletableStage as the only RX implementation covered by a JCP standard? I had the impression, that the discussion stopped at that point and we did _not_ find a concensus.
-Markus
From: Santiago Pericasgeertsen [mailto:santiago.pericasgeertsen_at_oracle.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017 20:54
To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
Subject: Re: [jax-rs-spec users] JAX-RS 2.1 - work schedule
On Jan 12, 2017, at 1:54 PM, Markus KARG <markus_at_headcrashing.eu> wrote:
Did we decide that we want this?
I seem to recall you asking this before. Rx is one of the topics for 2.1 as described on the JCP page. User feedback for the proposal has been very positive.
— Santiago
From: Santiago Pericasgeertsen [mailto:santiago.pericasgeertsen_at_oracle.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 12. Januar 2017 19:02
To: jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
Subject: Re: [jax-rs-spec users] JAX-RS 2.1 - work schedule
On Jan 12, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Markus KARG < <mailto:markus_at_headcrashing.eu> markus_at_headcrashing.eu> wrote:
The question is whether we actually want the ability to support other reactive implementations, or whether we decide to stick with CompletableStage? The rx intermediate method makes the API more complex for anybody.
Same pattern that was used for async() in JAX-RS 2.0. I really don’t see the complexity that you talk about. We obviously need to do “something” if we want to support this.
— Santiago