Lambdafication (was Re: Default methods in JFX-8)

Fri Oct 4 05:05:23 PDT 2013

Ok. Here you go...

I just did an inspection run for the controls module and my IDE came up
with  (drum roll) 888 possible lambda conversions..

Looking through them I discovered that usage of <> (aka diamond syntax) is
  not used (or at least not used a lot) in at least the controls modules.
My IDE showed me 1171 occurrences.

Is there a good reason not to use diamonds?

Will now try to apply all those changes and figure out if this still
builds... up next: go through the other modules...

-Sven

On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com>wrote:

> Brian was telling me at J1 that whether parallel gets you performance or
> not depends on the size of the collection and the complexity of the work to
> perform. There is definitely a point at which parallel helps -- and a point
> at which it hurts.
>
> Richard
>
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Hervé Girod <herve.girod at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is a nice example, taking advantage of the ease of going parallel.
> Apparently the performance without parallel will also further improve.
> http://blog.hersen.name/blog/2013/10/01/project-lambda-it-was-worth-the-wait/
> >
> > Hervé
> >
> > Sent from my iPad
> >
> >> On 4 oct. 2013, at 00:20, David Grieve <david.grieve at oracle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> And what about Stream? I like the declarative code that comes from
> using Stream and I can see places in the code where Stream could be used,
> but I wonder about its performance relative to iterators and/or enhanced
> for loops.
> >>
> >> On Oct 3, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Richard Bair <richard.bair at oracle.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Hello, OpenJFX Community.
> >>>>
> >>>> There's a question about using Java 8 features in FX.
> >>>>
> >>>> I've been working on the support for InputMethods in JFXPanel which
> is an important feature for many users who speak hieroglyphic languages.
> >>>> The issue is tracked under:
> https://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-13248
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to have a high-quality support we need to change
> javafx.scene.input.InputMethodRequests interface and introduce 3 new
> methods. This is not needed for pure FX applications right now, but
> absolutely required for InputMethods in the JFXPanel. However, the
> interface is public and it was present since FX2.0, so changing it would
> become a breaking change. So the only way to avoid the problem is using the
> default methods. Those would return some stub values, the JDK is OK with
> that, as it would not crash or throw exceptions, but text composition would
> not work correctly.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know that we want to avoid using the Java 8 features in the JFX-8,
> so I wanted to ask - is it OK to use the default methods here?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If you are staying away from JDK8 features for the JFX78 backport,
> don't worry.  There are more issues with new JDK8 APIs than with the new
> language features.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example there were default methods put into some collections
> classes that we solved by pushing them down to the first implements.  But
> the Date and Time picker depends on the new time package.  The threeten
> backport won't be updated until after 8 ships, so that has been removed so
> far.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'de be interested to know what a wholesale lamdaization would result
> in speed wise and code size wise (both source and compiled).  From what I
> can tell the IDEs can lambda and de-lambda fairly easily, so it jsut makes
> the backport more of a busy work proposition.  If there were performance
> gains it would also make a great front page story in the next java magazine
> or a case study..
> >>>
> >>> After having used Lambda's for JavaOne, I'd love to make the
> conversion, even if in the end the performance was the same, because the
> savings in noise in the Java files is so big. At one time I just took the
> concurrent classes and lambda-ized them to measure the impact on those
> classes. You could maybe pick a package and just lambda-ize that one
> package and see what happens in terms of size reduction. We might see:
> >>>
> >>>  + A reduction in the overall class size (not pack-200'd)
> >>>  - An increase in startup time (have to spin up synthetic classes
> created at usage time)
> >>>  +/- And increase or decrease in performance
> >>>  + A decrease in source code
> >>>
> >>> It would be interesting to get some data for these points and see what
> effect lambda's have. Especially if an IDE can just do it in bulk…
> >>>
> >>> Richard
> >>
>
>

-- 
Sven Reimers

* Senior Expert Software Architect
* NetBeans Dream Team Member: http://dreamteam.netbeans.org
* Community Leader  NetBeans: http://community.java.net/netbeans
                              Desktop Java:
http://community.java.net/javadesktop
* Duke's Choice Award Winner 2009
* Blog: http://nbguru.blogspot.com

* XING: https://www.xing.com/profile/Sven_Reimers8
* LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/svenreimers

Join the NetBeans Groups:
* XING: http://www.xing.com/group-20148.82db20
* NUGM: http://haug-server.dyndns.org/display/NUGM/Home
* LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1860468
                   http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=107402
                   http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1684717
* Oracle: https://mix.oracle.com/groups/18497