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

Change scheduler factory to care about loopers, not handlers. #282

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 2, 2016

Conversation

JakeWharton
Copy link
Member

A Looper is the currency of Android-specific work scheduling that we should be exposing. Handler is only a helper through which we access the Looper.

A Looper is the currency of Android-specific work scheduling that we should be exposing. Handler is only a helper through which we access the Looper.
*
* @deprecated Use {@link AndroidSchedulers#from(Looper)}.
*/
@Deprecated
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we're going to another major revision for the next release (2.x), why not just remove it entirely?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Next is 1.2. I don't see a reason to do a major release for it and having
major versions out of sync with RxJava is going to be a mess.

On Mon, May 2, 2016, 9:14 AM Daniel Lew notifications@github.com wrote:

In rxandroid/src/main/java/rx/android/schedulers/HandlerScheduler.java
#282 (comment):

-/** A {@link Scheduler} backed by a {@link Handler}. */
-public final class HandlerScheduler extends Scheduler {

If we're going to another major revision for the next release (2.x), why
not just remove it entirely?


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/ReactiveX/RxAndroid/pull/282/files/0bb9b4e63f5560ca238233f1c4d692d9bc8b5ba0#r61736328

@dlew
Copy link
Collaborator

dlew commented May 2, 2016

LGTM besides the question of whether to deprecate or remove.

@JakeWharton
Copy link
Member Author

I filed the 2.x issues for the hypothetical future of what needs done for RxJava 2.0–should it ever happen.

@JakeWharton JakeWharton merged commit f210386 into master May 2, 2016
@JakeWharton JakeWharton deleted the jw/from-looper branch May 2, 2016 13:37
@dlew
Copy link
Collaborator

dlew commented May 2, 2016

Ah, okay, makes sense. In that case deprecation is good.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants