Is this code convertible to a lambda style?

[Marcos Antonio]

I agree with you. In terms of readibility two filters are better and, as you pointed out, it doesn't hurt performance. Also, as I work with 80 columns in my editor, two filters fit better; with one filter I would have to continue the lambda in the next line.

Marcos

________________________________
> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:34:18 +0300 
> Subject: Re: Is this code convertible to a lambda style? 
> From: pavel.shackih at gmail.com 
> To: mcnepp02 at googlemail.com 
> CC: marcos_antonio_ps at hotmail.com; lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net 
> 
> In terms of perfomance first variant can better because under hood 
> stream implementation know about 2 predicates and can optimise this 
> (for example parallelize) on the fly. Anyway I believe it is hard to 
> say about perfomance benefits in this case. Also I think in terms of 
> readability two filters looks more elegant and clean but it is a matter 
> of taste :) 
> 
> 
> 2013/12/29 Gernot Neppert 
> <mcnepp02 at googlemail.com<mailto:mcnepp02 at googlemail.com>> 
> Am 28.12.2013 17:00, schrieb Marcos Antonio: 
>> 
>> Maybe at this point you can call me a little paranoid, but I like a 
> code that looks a bit more symmetric (maybe just for aesthetic 
> reasons). This is how my code is now: 
>> 
>> return getMetadataReader().getPropertyDescriptors().stream(). 
>> filter(d -> d.getType() == PropertyType.ENTITY). 
>> filter(d -> hasChildAssociation(d)). 
>> findFirst(). 
>> map(d -> d.convertToProperty()). 
>> orElse(null); 
>> 
>> 
> 
> Maybe it would benefit (at least in terms of readability, but also 
> performance-wise) from combining the two filters like this: 
> 
> return getMetadataReader().getPropertyDescriptors().stream(). 
> filter(d -> d.getType() == PropertyType.ENTITY && 
> hasChildAssociation(d)). 
> findFirst(). 
> map(d -> d.convertToProperty()). 
> orElse(null); 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pavel