Yes, naming it unwrap() is OK for me.
We could also have a method without any argument, but I think we still need
a method with an argument for type inference, so that it is possible to
chain methods in fluent API. Having only a method <T> T unwrap() would be
usable only if its result is assigned to a variable, forcing people to
break the fluent code. Or they would need to use type conversion like
((Type)rx().unwrap()), which requires too many brackets and is error-prone.
Ondrej
2017-01-14 15:28 GMT+01:00 Markus KARG <markus_at_headcrashing.eu>:
> Sounds good for me, but actually I think it would be even simpler if we
> name it "unwrap()", and do not fill in any parameters. As I said, I think
> applications will typically use only one technology at the time. So
> "unwrap()" simply can check if there is a @Provider registered having a
> method with the same parameters as your proposed "conver()", we finally
> have the requested plugability, no additonal complexity, follow existing
> JAX-RS patterns, and get rid of repeating lots of "rx(Class)". :-)
>
>
>
> -Markus
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ondrej Mihályi [mailto:ondrej.mihalyi_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Samstag, 14. Januar 2017 12:54
> *To:* jsr370-experts_at_jax-rs-spec.java.net
> *Subject:* Suggestion to refactor rx invoker API
>
>
>
> I was thinking about an alternative to current rx API, to simplify it in
> context of supporting extensibility.
>
> My idea is to modify the CompletionStageRxInvoker, so that it returns an
> extension to CompletionStage, which would contain additional method to
> convert the interface to any other reactive interface:
>
> public interface RxCompletionStage<T> extends CompletionStage<T> {
> <NEW> NEW convert(Function<CompletionStage<T>, NEW> converter);
> }
>
> With this, we would move all the complexity to this new interface, which
> still can be used as a usual CompletionStage, but with the additional
> convert method, it provides an extension point to other interfaces. And
> it's based on standard CompletionStage, therefore we don't need additional
> rx invokers.
>
> We could remove RxInvokerProvider, the 2 rx() methods from the Builder,
> which accept RxInvokerProvider, and even remove the RxInvoker interface, as
> CompletionStageRxInvoker would be the only required implementation.
>
>
>
> Here is an example of what I mean, with RxJava2 as an example:
>
> *client*.request().rx().get(). // we get the RxCompletionStage here, which extends CompletionStage
> .convert(this::flowableFromStage) // accepts a function that converts the CompletionStage to another interface
> .subscribe(s -> testResult = s, Throwable::printStackTrace);
>
> An example of a working code here <https://github.com/OndrejM-demonstrations/JavaEEReactive/blob/rxjava/src/test/java/reactivejavaee/CompletionStageRxJavaTest.java#L120> (although not using JAX-RS, just wrapping a method that returns a CompletionStage).
>
> Ondrej
>
>