+1
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Dennis Kieselhorst wrote:
> +1
>
+1
-
Freeman(Yue) Fang
Red Hat, Inc.
FuseSource is now part of Red Hat
> On Feb 3, 2018, at 3:57 AM, Daniel Kulp wrote:
>
> This is a vote to release CXF 3.2.2. We’ve fixed over 60 JIRA issues,
> definitely time to release it. This also includes releases of build-utils
> (3
Yes, treating it like a MBR would work. However, there needs to be a way
as you mention to make it go async. I'm more trying to see if this is
already supported somehow.
There's a few ways I could see executor working:
- when building the proxy, include an executor() method (I think this is
alr
Why not using the response type? It is not hard to detect it is a
CompletionStage and therefore call rx().
Side note: if there is an Executor param it should be forwarded/configured
IMHO.
Le 4 févr. 2018 20:49, "John D. Ament" a écrit :
> So far, it looks like proxy clients don't support rx() i
So far, it looks like proxy clients don't support rx() invocations. I do
see rx() methods within WebClient that would allow its use, but I don't see
a straight forward way that those methods could be invoked within a proxy.
It could be that a custom annotation is used, indicating the response
shou
Well, now that I understand that it was meant specifically for client only
(its kind of odd, because JsonStreamingAsyncSubscriber is really for
subscribers, which is more on the server produced response).
What if we just had distinct modules for reactive-client and
reactive-server?
But either way
The same though applies to the client code - it makes no sense on the
server side, so may be it is just simpler to make that dep non-optional
for the consistency purpose, up to you guys...
Sergey
On 04/02/18 18:57, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
You've already concluded it is a bug...
I recall now,
You've already concluded it is a bug...
I recall now, I made it optional because that code makes no sense on the
client side only, while the reactive streams api is also pulled from the
reactor dep...
Cheers, Sergey
On 04/02/18 18:12, Andriy Redko wrote:
Same conclusion, it shouldn't be opti
Same conclusion, it shouldn't be optional/provided.
Thanks for spotting it.
Best Regards,
Andriy Redko
JDA> That's what I'm asking basically. If you look at
JDA>
https://github.com/apache/cxf/blob/master/rt/rs/extensions/reactor/pom.xml#L47-L49
JDA> I
JDA> don't believe it should be provide
That's what I'm asking basically. If you look at
https://github.com/apache/cxf/blob/master/rt/rs/extensions/reactor/pom.xml#L47-L49
I
don't believe it should be provided/optional.
On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 12:49 PM Sergey Beryozkin
wrote:
> Why should be optional ?
>
> Sergey
> On 04/02/18 14:00,
Hi,
As far as I can tell, the dependency on reactive streams isn't optional in
the project reactor module. I'm wondering, was this just a typo, or am I
missing something?
John
11 matches
Mail list logo