|
|
|
@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ On that foundation, Spring WebFlux provides a choice of two programming models: |
|
|
|
from the `spring-web` module. Both Spring MVC and WebFlux controllers support reactive |
|
|
|
from the `spring-web` module. Both Spring MVC and WebFlux controllers support reactive |
|
|
|
(Reactor and RxJava) return types, and, as a result, it is not easy to tell them apart. One notable |
|
|
|
(Reactor and RxJava) return types, and, as a result, it is not easy to tell them apart. One notable |
|
|
|
difference is that WebFlux also supports reactive `@RequestBody` arguments. |
|
|
|
difference is that WebFlux also supports reactive `@RequestBody` arguments. |
|
|
|
* <<webflux-fn>>: Lambda-based, lightweight, and functional programming model. You can think of |
|
|
|
* xref:web/webflux-functional.adoc[Functional Endpoints]: Lambda-based, lightweight, and functional programming model. You can think of |
|
|
|
this as a small library or a set of utilities that an application can use to route and |
|
|
|
this as a small library or a set of utilities that an application can use to route and |
|
|
|
handle requests. The big difference with annotated controllers is that the application |
|
|
|
handle requests. The big difference with annotated controllers is that the application |
|
|
|
is in charge of request handling from start to finish versus declaring intent through |
|
|
|
is in charge of request handling from start to finish versus declaring intent through |
|
|
|
|