Why one can't submit an alternative thread pool to the streams API?
edo3311 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 13 11:18:36 UTC 2019
On 10/12/2019 7:03 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>> It certainly isn't elegant. Perhaps a better way might be an argument to the parallel method that specifies the pool to be used?
> This was discussed early during the development of the streams API, and quickly went into the bucket labeled “obvious but wrong.” (It’s in good company.) For every case where this is the right move, there are 10,000 others where it will be an attractive nuisance, but wrong. It wouldn’t be fair to Java developers to dangle this option in their face.
> Further, while everyone agrees the real estate between `.parallel(` and `)` is the right place to “build” to provide more control over parallel execution, no one agrees what we should actually build there. Pretty convinced that a FJP is the wrong thing to build there, but still not sure what the right thing is, so we leave it undeveloped for now.
Thanks for the explanation. Ok, no one agrees on how to do it, yet it is
done using ForkJoinPool with no API option to change that. If no one
agrees it should be left for each and everyone to decide. Now, someone
decided on FJP.
More information about the jdk-dev