Reactive Programming in Java

Reactive Programming in Java: When, Why, and How in 2025

Modern applications are expected to be always available, respond instantly, and scale effortlessly to meet unpredictable demand. These expectations significantly strain on traditional synchronous programming models, which rely heavily on blocking operations and thread-per-request strategies. As load increases, such models tend to consume more memory and CPU, eventually becoming bottlenecks.

This is where Reactive Programming comes into play. It offers a programming paradigm built on asynchronous data streams, which inherently propagate change. Rather than blocking a thread while waiting for a response, reactive systems subscribe to data sources and react as data becomes available. The key advantage is non-blocking execution, enabling applications to handle many more operations with fewer threads, improving resource efficiency and responsiveness under load.

 

What Does Reactive Mean? Reactive Java Specification

At its core, being reactive means responding to changes and events as they happen. In software systems, this translates to handling data asynchronously, using non-blocking operations, and propagating changes in real-time.

The Reactive Manifesto defines four foundational traits:

  • Responsive: Systems respond in a timely and consistent manner.
  • Resilient: Systems remain responsive even in the face of failure.
  • Elastic: Systems adapt to varying workloads.
  • Message-Driven: Asynchronous messaging decouples components and isolates failures.

To achieve this in Java, the Reactive Streams specification was introduced, defining interfaces for asynchronous stream processing with built-in backpressure—a mechanism to prevent overwhelming consumers with data.

Since Java 9, these ideas were formalized in the java.util.concurrent.Flow API. Libraries implementing this include:

  • Project Reactor (Spring WebFlux): Provides Mono and Flux types.
  • RxJava: A mature library inspired by functional reactive programming.
  • Akka Streams / Apache Pekko: Powerful in distributed, backpressure-aware systems.
  • Vert.x: High-performance, polyglot toolkit used in Quarkus reactive modules.
  • Mutiny: A modern, developer-friendly reactive library for Quarkus with Uni and Multi types.

These tools offer a robust foundation for building interoperable, scalable reactive Java systems.

 

When to Go Reactive: Core Use Cases and Benefits

Reactive programming excels in contexts where responsiveness, scalability, and efficiency are crucial:

  • High I/O operations: For example, an e-commerce platform fetching data from multiple APIs (inventory, pricing, reviews) can use non-blocking pipelines to aggregate results concurrently.
  • Streaming data: Applications like real-time dashboards or IoT monitors benefit from processing continuous data flows without latency.
  • Asynchronous UI backends: Serving SPAs or mobile apps with fluid, non-blocking interfaces.
  • Microservices communication: Using WebClient in Spring WebFlux to orchestrate dependent service calls efficiently

 

Key Benefits:

  • Resource efficiency: Handles many concurrent operations with fewer threads.
  • Scalability: Supports large user bases and request loads.
  • Resilience: Features like timeouts and reactive error handling ensure graceful degradation.
  • Responsiveness: Maintains a consistent user experience under stress.

 

 

The Other Side: Drawbacks, Challenges and Pitfalls

Reactive programming also introduces complexity:

  • Steep learning curve: Requires unlearning sequential paradigms favoring streams and operators.
  • Complex debugging: Asynchronous execution can obfuscate stack traces.
  • Testing challenges: Requires specialized tools like StepVerifier (Reactor) or TestSubscriber (RxJava).
  • Tooling limitations: Some IDEs and profilers lack full async support.
  • Maintainability concerns: Without discipline reactive code can become difficult to read and extend.

 

Common Pitfalls:

  • Misunderstood backpressure causing memory leaks.
  • Silently swallowed exceptions within reactive chains.
  • Context propagation issues when accessing databases or managing state.

 

To succeed teams should prioritize modular design, observability, and resilience patterns like retries and circuit breakers.

 

When Not to Use Reactive Programming

Reactive programming isn’t suitable for all projects:

  • Simple, CRUD-heavy applications: Traditional imperative code is simpler and easier to maintain.
  • CPU-bound tasks: Blocking code may perform better for tasks like image processing.
  • Blocking API dependencies: Legacy libraries can undermine reactive performance.
  • Inexperienced teams: Reactive paradigms can slow development and introduce bugs.
  • Limited observability tooling: Makes debugging harder than in imperative systems.

 

Choose the right paradigm based on your workload type, team experience, and tooling maturity.

 

Spring Boot Showdown: Reactive vs Imperative

 

Spring MVC (Imperative)

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/products")
public class ProductController {
@Autowired
private ProductRepository productRepository;
@PostMapping
public ResponseEntity<Product> create(@RequestBody Product product) {
try {
Product saved = productRepository.save(product);
return ResponseEntity.ok(saved);
} catch (Exception e) {
return ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR).build();
}
}
@GetMapping("/{id}")
public ResponseEntity<Product> get(@PathVariable String id) {
return productRepository.findById(id)
.map(ResponseEntity::ok)
.orElse(ResponseEntity.notFound().build());
}
@GetMapping
public ResponseEntity<List<Product>> list() {
List<Product> products = productRepository.findAll();
return ResponseEntity.ok(products);
}
}

 

Spring WebFlux (Reactive)

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/products")
public class ProductReactiveController {
  @Autowired
  private ReactiveProductRepository productRepository;
  @PostMapping
  public Mono<ResponseEntity<Product>> create(@RequestBody Product product) {
    return productRepository.save(product)
        .map(ResponseEntity::ok)
        .onErrorResume(e -> Mono.just(ResponseEntity.status(HttpStatus.INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR).build()));
  }
  @GetMapping("/{id}")
  public Mono<ResponseEntity<Product>> get(@PathVariable String id) {
    return productRepository.findById(id)
        .map(ResponseEntity::ok)
        .defaultIfEmpty(ResponseEntity.notFound().build());
  }
  @GetMapping
  public Flux<Product> list() {
    return productRepository.findAll()
        .onErrorResume(e -> Flux.empty()); // log error if needed
  }
}

 

Key Differences:

  • Programming Model: MVC uses blocking methods; WebFlux uses Mono/Flux.
  • Concurrency: MVC = thread-per-request; WebFlux = event-loop, non-blocking.
  • Repositories: MVC uses CrudRepository, WebFlux uses ReactiveCrudRepository.
  • Error Handling: MVC uses try-catch; WebFlux uses reactive operators.
  • Performance: Reactive scales better under high I/O; MVC suits CPU-bound tasks.

 

Alternative Approaches: Project Loom and the Future of Concurrency

Project Loom introduces virtual threads and structured concurrency in Java. It provides blocking-style syntax with async-like scalability, minimizing the cognitive overhead of reactive programming.

Loom vs Reactive:

  • Programming Model: Loom retains sequential code style; reactive uses async streams.
  • Learning Curve: Loom is intuitive; reactive requires a paradigm shift.
  • Tooling: Loom integrates with standard debugging tools; reactive often needs specialized ones.
  • Best Use Cases:
    • Reactive: I/O-heavy, real-time streaming.
    • Loom: Request orchestration, and moderate concurrency tasks.

 

The two models are complementary—use reactive for data pipelines, Loom for orchestration logic.

 

Final Thoughts: When to Choose Reactive Programming

Reactive programming is not a silver bullet—but it’s a powerful paradigm for modern systems facing high concurrency, asynchronous I/O, or real-time demands.

When to Use Reactive Programming:

  • Systems with high concurrency or asynchronous data streams.
  • Real-time dashboards, API aggregators, or microservices.
  • Workloads that are primarily I/O-bound.

 

When to Avoid It:

  • Simple CRUD apps without high concurrency needs.
  • Teams inexperienced in reactive paradigms.
  • Systems using blocking libraries or CPU-bound workloads.

 

Trade-Offs to Consider:

  • Reactive code brings efficiency and scalability but also complexity.
  • Testing, debugging, and observability require advanced tooling and patterns.
  • To accomplish this teams must apply modular design, resilience patterns, and clear documentation.

 

Project Loom as a Middle Ground:

  • Offers virtual threads with familiar blocking syntax.
  • Provides an easier entry point to scalable concurrency.
  • Can be combined with reactive techniques for hybrid architectures.

Both approaches aim to improve scalability, responsiveness, and resource efficiency—choose the right one based on your use case, team skills, and system complexity.

 

Author:

Guillermo Granado is a Senior Fullstack Software Engineer at Zartis, with over 10 years of experience delivering scalable and robust applications. He specializes in backend development, working extensively with Java and TypeScript, while also bringing solid experience in Python with experience provisioning infrastructure using Terraform in CI/CD workflows. He also has strong experience on the frontend side, particularly with modern frameworks like React and Angular, enabling me to contribute effectively across the entire development stack.

Share this post

Do you have any questions?

Zartis Tech Review

Your monthly source for AI and software news

;