1

Topic: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

I wrote on Scala much and very well I imagine possibilities of asynchronous programming on asynchronous Future. In Java8 entered, and in Java9 finished to mind own analog - java.util.concurrent. CompletableFuture. On the other hand,  RxJava and at me the impression was added that RxJava and as a whole the idea of reactive programming on  and  became outdated and dies out, conceding Future/Promise.  judgement of people which worked both with that, and with that. What do you think?

2

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

Hello, scf, you wrote: scf> On the other hand,  RxJava and at me the impression was added that RxJava and as a whole the idea of reactive programming on  and  became outdated and dies out, conceding Future/Promise. scf> Rekvestiruju judgement of people which worked both with that, and with that. What do you think? One push (rx), another pull (CompletableFuture), c different applications. Rx, was  any time and badly approached for something except UI. Now there was a normal release project reactor - it more stablly and more correctly, it is already possible to use in serious projects. Still in 9-ke  here it: https://community.oracle.com/docs/DOC-1006738 so the idea explicitly is not dead.

3

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

Hello, scf, you wrote: scf> On the other hand,  RxJava and at me the impression was added that RxJava and as a whole the idea of reactive programming on  and  became outdated and dies out, conceding Future/Promise. scf> Rekvestiruju judgement of people which worked both with that, and with that. What do you think? More recently quitted Spring 5 with support by support reactive Mono and Flux so I do not think that the idea became outdated. All the same reactive flows abstraction level above Future.

4

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

Hello, scf, you wrote: scf> Rekvestiruju judgement of people which worked both with that, and with that. What do you think? So it is different things. Observable there - where there are flows of asynchronous events. Future/Promise - where asynchronous event strictly one. And in that and other case allows to build this all chains of asynchronous calls one after another therefore it is possible to avoid CallbackHell. But for one tasks the flow of asynchronous events is necessary, for others is not present. There, where the flow of events - there is required it makes sense to fasten RxJava. There, where the task implies simply one asynchronous event - there in many cases it makes sense to manage functional CompletableFuture and not to drag superfluous libraries. Generally the concept rxJava allows more possibilities and is more general-purpose. But it is not always necessary. If suddenly in Java there will be a functional async await in many cases it will be preferable to use it. But only from the point of view  the code. And so - these libraries simply allow to bypass limitation of language and to build chains of asynchronous events. There will be no such ready libraries, made developers would write for a long time own  not to fence absolutely unsupported noodles from .

5

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

Hello, scf, you wrote: scf> On the other hand,  RxJava and at me the impression was added that RxJava and as a whole the idea of reactive programming on  and  became outdated and dies out, conceding Future/Promise. I after akka streams had exactly reverse impression but if to think, anybody is better than nobody, it is more convenient to do simply any things on , any is simple on .

6

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

E> there will be no such ready libraries, made developers would write for a long time own  not to fence absolutely unsupported noodles from . To children from jetbrains, presence of these ready libraries not  to make the  with async/await/korutinami in

7

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

Well give I, so to say, I will recover discussion. Here my arguments: 95 % of the asynchronous code in real applications are calls of microservices by which it is necessary to do parallely for reduction latency. I.e. one-time asynchronous  a-lja CompletableFuture. It is necessary ? Here high-grade : CompletableFuture <Optional <byte []>> read (int len);//we read n byte, Empty means EOF, after the reading termination we cause read () once again CompletableFuture <Void> close (); It is much easier, than special  libraries and easily merge , etc. push/pull allows any manipulations with  type?  it is possible to consider both push, and pull. pull: the client causes read (), the server considers it as a command on data reading and launches asynchronous reading.   when reading will be completed push: The client is written so that always causes read (), the server "holds" asynchronous request about reading while it will not have data, then  . So than  it is better?

8

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

Hello, scf, you wrote: scf> So than  it is better? A composition. We tell, to take N  from one , K from another, on top personal , moreover the nontrivial logic sideways.

9

Re: RxJava vs Future/Promise framework

Hello, SomeOne_TT, you wrote: SO _> the Composition. We tell, to take N  from one , K from another, on top personal , moreover the nontrivial logic sideways.  too it is remarkable  and is thus much easier. ` n x Future <A>-> Future <List <A>> ` and ` Future <A>-> Future <Optional <A>> ` are elementarily implemented