Refactor of Collector interface

[Kevin Bourrillion]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Tim Peierls <tim at peierls.net> wrote:

My subjective sense of good Java API design very strongly prefers the
>> "before" picture here, which I see as a lot more "Java-like", so I'm taking
>> a closer look.
>
>
> The before picture is certainly more pre-lambda-Java-like, but I don't
> think it's fair to knock something meant to fit well with a new language
> feature by those rules.
>

I think I'm only really saying the same thing Brian is when he says "While
clearly we don't want all interfaces to evolve this way..." and "while I
don't feel completely super-great about it....", etc.

I'd prefer to not rely on the taste argument if we can treat the benefits
concretely.



>
> I thought the return types of the after picture conveyed more clearly the
> idea of "I'm going to need a way to supply result objects, and way to
> accumulate elements into result objects, and a way to combine result
> objects."  And seeing those interface types as return types reinforced my
> understanding of those types.
>
>
> I assume that the trade-offs we're weighing here are purely to do with
>> what it's like to be a Collector implementor, correct?
>>
>
> Well, since I persist in preferring the after picture -- maybe the
> impending blizzard has addled my senses -- I'd say the benefit to Collector
> implementers is secondary.
>
> --tim
>



-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/lambda-libs-spec-experts/attachments/20130208/2ad805ad/attachment-0001.html