On the other hand Apeiron HTTP is dynamic - you can create new Apeiron HTTP instances base on subsets of config.Apeiron HTTP endpoints config is declarative - you may think of it as dual to View framework router.

Apeiron HTTP relies on Axios library, which has richer API than RxJS-DOM.Apeiron plays great with RxJS - dataStream and errorStream are merely RxJS Observables.Apeiron has richer API both on HTTP and WS/SSE written in more functional style.The barrier for entry into Apeiron is low: you may have no reactive or Haskell experience to operate IO a binding to Stream a quasi-impertively as usual chained methods.Hence Apeiron implies good architecture: Model layer isolation, Model immutability, flattened dataStream and errorStream, and on the other hand allows high composability and decomposition.Apeiron is accurate in terms of app architecture semantics: any IO is implied to be treated with Apeiron, which encourages best FP practices (side effect denotation with data type).Apeiron provides unified and simple API for IO of any origin.It is flexible and semantically clean abstraction for M(model) layer.

What is the difference between Apeiron and RxJS-DOM?Īpeiron is not just a syntactic sugar to avoid boilerplate code. binding IO and Observable/Observer with Rx.Subject and vice versa). APEIRON.JS - reactive bindings for IO-actions and more.Īpeiron is a tiny library written in ES6 with RxJS to provide concise and robust infrastructure for driving data layer abstractions: HTTP, SSE, WS, other IO-actions as multidirectional reactive streams (ie.

Apeiron instaling