stream() / parallelStream() methods
Kevin Bourrillion
kevinb at google.com
Fri Feb 8 15:28:46 PST 2013
Here's the other issue this raises.
To my knowledge there's no Streamable<T> interface defined. Maybe it
wasn't needed; I'm not sure. But once Iterable looks like this, now
Iterable becomes the new Streamable. If you support a stream(), you'll
implement Iterable to expose that fact. This is a little bit weird. I'm
undecided on how big a problem it would be, but overall, Streamable<T>
seems like a pretty normal thing to have.
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
More information about the lambda-libs-spec-observers
mailing list