Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

how do we plan to keep the reactor module updated based on the updates to reactor-core? #2960

Closed
piyushmor opened this issue Sep 28, 2021 · 6 comments

Comments

@piyushmor
Copy link

currently kotlinx-coroutines-reactor module version 1.5.2 uses the reactor-core version of 3.4.1. How do we plan on keep these in sync in the long run? do we need to create a new issue every time when reactor needs to be upgraded? or should this have a separate release cycle based on each reactor and coroutine release?

@qwwdfsad
Copy link
Collaborator

We do not plan to keep it in sync on a regular basis. Reactor is expected to be fully backwards compatible (at least when no internal API is involved), so we don't have to keep it in sync: end users can just depend on the latest version of Reactor and enjoy both coroutines and latest Reactor features.

Could you please elaborate on why you do think this is a serious concern?

@piyushmor
Copy link
Author

We do not plan to keep it in sync on a regular basis. Reactor is expected to be fully backwards compatible (at least when no internal API is involved), so we don't have to keep it in sync: end users can just depend on the latest version of Reactor and enjoy both coroutines and latest Reactor features.

Could you please elaborate on why you do think this is a serious concern?

Maybe it is and maybe it is not, I cannot comment on that. But in the past I had raised a similar issue: #2432

@qwwdfsad
Copy link
Collaborator

I would solve it on a case-by-case basis then. For now it seems like everything should be compatible and there is no urge to update the dependency in a reactive manner (pun intended)

@dkhalanskyjb
Copy link
Collaborator

(Offtop) I'd say that a better pun is the opposite, that is, that we intend to update the dependencies reactively, as opposed to proactively.

@fvasco
Copy link
Contributor

fvasco commented Sep 29, 2021

Appeal to novelty is a common fallacy, we should consider that a newer version may contain a bug without a known workaround, updating a dependency just to stay tuned does not improve the integration.
This module is an adapter, so I can expect that the end-user already declares a direct dependency from Reactor, they is free to choose the reactor version and upgrade/downgrade as preferred.

@piyushmor
Copy link
Author

ok makes sense

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants