stream() / parallelStream() methods

[Kevin Bourrillion]

Can we make our best attempt to specify Iterable.stream() better than
Iterable.iterator() was?

I haven't worked out how to *say* this yet, but the idea is:

- If at all possible to ensure that each call to stream() returns an actual
working and *independent* stream, you really really should do that.
- If that's just not possible, the second call to stream() really really
should throw ISE.

(Yes, I do realize most Iterables by far will just inherit stream(), so it
will only be as repeat-usable as iterator() is.)


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Kevin Bourrillion <kevinb at google.com> wrote:

> Yeah, I think we have little choice but to do this. It makes sense, and
> without it, Guava will just end up having to offer a static helper method
> to return (iterable instanceof Collection) ? ((Collection)
> iterable).stream() :
> Streams.stream(Streams.spliteratorUnknownSize(iterable.iterator()), 0).
> Blech.
>
> (Tangentially, I would really love to drop parallelStream() and let people
> call stream().parallel(). But I haven't managed to scour the archives to
> find if that argument's already suitably played out.)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at oracle.com>wrote:
>
>> Currently, we define stream() and parallelStream() on Collection, with
>> default of:
>>
>>     default Stream<E> stream() {
>>         return Streams.stream(() -> Streams.spliterator(iterator()**,
>> size(), Spliterator.SIZED), Spliterator.SIZED);
>>     }
>>
>>     default Stream<E> parallelStream() {
>>         return stream().parallel();
>>     }
>>
>> So the default behavior is "get an Iterator, turn it into a Spliterator,
>> and turn that into a Stream."  Then the specific Collection classes
>> generally override it, providing better Spliterator implementations and
>> more precise flag sets.
>>
>>
>> Several people have requested moving stream/parallelStream up to
>> Iterable, on the theory that (a) the default implementations that would
>> live there are not terrible (only difference between that and Collection
>> default is Iterable doesn't know size()), (b) Collection could still
>> override with the size-injecting version, and (c) a lot of APIs are
>> designed to return Iterable as the "least common denominator" aggregate,
>> and being able to stream them would be useful.  I don't see any problem
>> with moving these methods up to Iterable.
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com
>



-- 
Kevin Bourrillion | Java Librarian | Google, Inc. | kevinb at google.com