Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Repo info
Activity
  • Jun 29 13:10
    dependabot[bot] closed #371
  • Jun 29 13:10
    dependabot[bot] commented #371
  • Jun 29 13:10

    dependabot[bot] on go_modules

    (compare)

  • Jun 29 13:10
    dependabot[bot] review_requested #373
  • Jun 29 13:10
    dependabot[bot] labeled #373
  • Jun 29 13:10
    dependabot[bot] labeled #373
  • Jun 29 13:10
    dependabot[bot] opened #373
  • Jun 29 13:10

    dependabot[bot] on go_modules

    Bump github.com/stretchr/testif… (compare)

  • Jun 28 08:21
    dayaftereh labeled #372
  • Jun 28 08:21
    dayaftereh assigned #372
  • Jun 28 08:21
    dayaftereh opened #372
  • Jun 27 20:43
    gevann starred ReactiveX/RxGo
  • Jun 27 17:17
    dayaftereh commented #342
  • Jun 26 11:38
    PepperBean starred ReactiveX/RxGo
  • Jun 26 06:54
    martinjirku starred ReactiveX/RxGo
  • Jun 24 13:10

    dependabot[bot] on go_modules

    (compare)

  • Jun 24 13:10
    dependabot[bot] closed #370
  • Jun 24 13:10
    dependabot[bot] commented #370
  • Jun 24 13:10
    dependabot[bot] labeled #371
  • Jun 24 13:10
    dependabot[bot] labeled #371
Avelino
@avelino

why not rather having a v2 branch and keep the v1 as the master?

very good, let’s on this sugestion

Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
great thanks :)
Artur Krysiak
@venth
@teivah I thought rather about implementing unit tests to check whether rxgo fulfills tck.
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@venth Well, for the time being RxGo is not compatible. What about Subscription.request(n int) to request n elements? It's not yet part of the implementation
Maybe we could also think about implementing different strategies like this: http://reactivex.io/RxJava/javadoc/io/reactivex/BackpressureStrategy.html
but this would have an impact about the current implementation as well because RxGo is only based on channels
and channels would not be able to support those different strategies
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@avelino thanks for your merging job
Avelino
@avelino
:D
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@avelino what about rx-interfaces branch by the way?
Artur Krysiak
@venth
@teivah
You are right. I think that if we would hide channel behind interface it would be feasible to implement them. Currently someone can play directly with channel which implement observable interface
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@venth this is actually part of the v2 branch
Avelino
@avelino
@teivah rx-interfaces is deprecated now :smile: v2 the future :heartpulse:
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
:)
Artur Krysiak
@venth
Yep, and which branch we will develop and make stable. For instance when there will be new operator, shall it be implemented separately for v1 and v2? Wouldn’t be better to have just one branch?
Avelino
@avelino
@teivah You can open issues of upcoming migrations and deployment to version 2, to give visibility of next steps, break N issue, step by step to implement
v1 and v2 branch because semver (go module 1.11)
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@avelino Alright!
Avelino
@avelino
Thanks man
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
what do you guys think about this assertion API: ReactiveX/RxGo#109
Avelino
@avelino
Hey @teivah , very very good work
9 new PR nice
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@avelino thanks :)
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@avelino Alright, goimports everywhere!
Avelino
@avelino
:D
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
yeah, we may have some conflicts...
most of my PR starts from the same branch
but once it is merged, we may have conflicts with the others because obv, they are not sync with upstream..
Avelino
@avelino
retro dependence :(
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
@avelino I fetched everything from upstream ;)
Artur Krysiak
@venth
Looks interesting:
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
I need also to integrate what we have in observer_mock.go in the assertion API (ReactiveX/RxGo#109) and makes something more generic
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
btw, @avelino what about posting a message in RxGo (official)/Lobby to inform people to come here?
if they did not follow the Github issue
Avelino
@avelino
send msg on channel @teivah pls
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
done ;)
I'm not a ReactiveX member so I don't known if people are going to listen to me but ok :)
Avelino
@avelino
thanks, I change channel title
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
Artur Krysiak
@venth
@teivah
For the double subscription. In case of v2 second subscription would receive same elements of just sequence as the first?
Teiva Harsanyi
@teivah
well, to be discussed maybe but in RxJava for example if you create an observable from an array, the second subscription is going to receive the same elements as the first one
here we just lose the messages as it is sent in a channel and retrieved during the first subscription
(and there's no way to retry it for the time being)
Artur Krysiak
@venth
If we will create function create that would receive function as argument then we could overcome the channel issue
this function would get emitter as the argument and will be responsible for emitting sequence elements