Closed
Description
It seems misleading that replay(1).refCount()
!= cache(1)
, especially when replay().refCount()
== cache()
.
It's especially odd because each one cannot mimic the behavior of the other - cache()
has no variant that limits the number of items to replay, whereas replay()
has no variant that allows you to hint how large the ReplaySubject
should be.
I see that this has been covered before (#1591, #2913), but I still feel like something could be done to clear up the matter. Not exactly sure what - maybe all it'd take is not having the javadoc for cache()
reference replay()
.