Reactive Streams discussion

[nickwongdev]

Howdy,

I'm new to the project but I have built several reactive projects in Java with Rx1, 2, and now Reactor, and Reactor Spring. Given Pivotal's backing and simpler semantics than Rx, Project Reactor seems to be pretty well positioned to become the defacto Java implementation of Reactive Streams. Rx will continue but not as prolifically as Reactor. This adoption includes the Java implementation of RSocket its self.

I've looked at a few implementations of reactive programming on c++, but I haven't seen one that follows the Mono, Flux, if there is one please let me know.

If there isn't a Project Reactor allegory on c++, I believe it is advantageous and strategic to take yarpl, rename a few pieces to follow Java's Reactor implementation and semantics. This would have advantages for cross language RSocket developers like me. I believe this would also solve the naming issue. Counter argument might be that Boost or Folly might implement a more ubiquitous implementation of Reactive Streams for C++, meaning the MVP of yarpl was intentional while we wait for a larger org to produce a standard.

By opening the issue, I'm really just trying to get an idea for the maintainer's appetite for having cross language semantics follow Project Reactor. Especially considering the project already decided to make their own custom implementation of Reactive Streams.

Thanks for your time,

Nick

[OlegDokuka]

I would suggest picking the part of the reactive-streams interfaces out and unify it first as a part of Reactive Streams specifications repository and then maintain the particular implementation which is compliant with the spec