Collection stream() and parallel()

[Brian Goetz]

I understand your frustration with the oddly-overlapping participation 
mechanisms.  But there is a suported mechanism for what you want -- the 
-comments list.

The deal with the -comments lists is:
  - You write a self-contained, reasoned analysis containing your feedback
  - In turn, we commit to reviewing and discussing your feedback.

What the -comments list doesn't do is provide a forum for open-ended, 
back-and-forth discussion.  In exchange, you get a higher level of service.

The -observers list is a place to have those open-ended discussions -- 
but given the higher noise level that is likely to ensue, the EG makes a 
lower committment to following it.

This list is for discussions of the *implementation*, and for discussion 
of user experience with the code as it is.  Sometimes the boundary 
between implementation and design is fuzzy.  We try to err on the side 
of not getting too bent out of shape when someone accidentally steps 
over that line, but the risk is that the conversation spirals off into 
an open-ended design discussion, at which point it may get shut down.

Hope this helps,
-Brian



On 12/10/2012 4:49 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Brian, can I post my suggestion here or must I subscribe to
> lambda-libs-spec-observers at openjdk.java.net?
>
> PS: The problem with ALL observers list is that they are totally
> worthless, in my opinion, because they all warn "EG members are under
> no obligation to follow the traffic on this list". If I post there, it
> sounds like no one will read them to reply -- so I feel I am writing
> into a black hole.
>
> Paul
>
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com> wrote:
>> This is under discussion in the EG now.
>>
>>
>> On 12/10/2012 4:09 PM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>>
>>> I was surprised to see both these methods return Streams with such
>>> wildly different method names. After seeing stream(), I was not
>>> expecting another method to return streams -- it seemed like the
>>> former was the "de facto" way of getting one.
>>>
>>> Would you consider perhaps renaming them? Something akin to
>>> serialStream() and parallelStream()? Or streamSerially() and
>>> streamParallely()?
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>