Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 9, 2020. It is now read-only.

Do you think about using rxjava? #44

Closed
Rainer-Lang opened this issue Feb 25, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

Do you think about using rxjava? #44

Rainer-Lang opened this issue Feb 25, 2016 · 8 comments
Labels

Comments

@Rainer-Lang
Copy link

No description provided.

@pedrovgs
Copy link
Contributor

I guess, in the future, we could provide another module giving support for RxJava :) what do you think @Serchinastico and @flipper83 ?

@cesards
Copy link

cesards commented Feb 25, 2016

  • 1 :-)

@Rainer-Lang
Copy link
Author

Any progress? :)

@pedrovgs
Copy link
Contributor

pedrovgs commented May 4, 2016

Nop. To be honest I'm not sure if we are going to provide support for RxJava... I'll ask again @Serchinastico @flipper83 thoughts?

@Serchinastico
Copy link
Contributor

My opinion is that we don't use Rx (at least not me) so it would be weird for us to implement a solution for a problem we don't have, what's more, it'd probably end up being hard to use or just wrong because we are not familiar enough with the framework.

We are open to incoming PRs though so don't be shy and let the open source flow!

@pedrovgs
Copy link
Contributor

pedrovgs commented May 4, 2016

If we are not going to implement the support for RxJava we should close this issue.

@pedrovgs pedrovgs closed this as completed May 4, 2016
@Rainer-Lang
Copy link
Author

@pedrovgs @Serchinastico Thanks for response. I understand - it's really complicated to implement something you don't use. ;)

@eugenio1590
Copy link

I think it would be a good idea to use Rx for the use case handler class, it actually saves a lot of work. I would just add the use of the @usecase tags or something similar. In general, the library has a very good support for the MVP and Bussines logic, but it is somewhat short for the use of Rx. :(

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants