Talk:Observable vs. Task
Nice article! Thanks!
In the Introduction you say "In previous articles we saw how to convert ". I guess that a link to these articles would be good.Br,
talk) 15:26, 9 July 2013 (EEST)(
Paulo.morgado -It's the first two links in the resources. I'll probably have to repeate the reference.
talk) 16:23, 9 July 2013 (EEST)(
Kiran10182 - Added See Also section
Thanks for writing this article. I sub-edited the article and made some Wiki style changes. I also created See Also section and moved previous articles links there. I hope they look better fit there.
By the way, "Applicability matrix" section made it very much clear about Observables vs. Task. Thanks for writing that section in the article.
talk) 21:26, 10 July 2013 (EEST)(
Paulo.morgado -Thanks Kiran. Always glad to help.
talk) 02:58, 11 July 2013 (EEST)(
Hamishwillee - Categories
As per my comment to your other article, we're moving to a category hierarchy rather than using "categories as tags". Upshot is that I'd be happy with "Reactive Programming" and "await-async" as categories if:
- They are the final leaf in a tree
- I can see how the tree progresses up to "General Programming on Windows Phone"
- They are unambiguously related to Windows Phone.
- We have enough topics to justify a category - 4 or 5 with scope for more would be fine.
- We have too many topics in proposed parent category - more than 50.
At the moment I'd say we don't need this level of depth because we don't have enough topics on reactive programming, but perhaps we do need "Programming Idioms for Windows Phone" or perhaps "Asynchronous Programming on Windows Phone". If you can suggest the tree I'd appreciate it.
More comments to follow...
talk) 08:51, 11 July 2013 (EEST)(
Hamishwillee - General comments
I think this is useful and it is a good and obvious question.
I have restructured as I indicated. This is now simpler but I think still captures your main points. Please check if you're happy with the changes and I didn't remove anything vital.
I removed one line which did not make sense to me: "An event-based asynchronous API in which only one event is fired for each call is, in fact, a callback API. The fact that it's implemented with the eventing mechanism of the .NET Framework doesn't make it an event-based asynchronous API." - specifically it is not clear in this statement whether this is a case for or against observables.
talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (EEST)(