Hi Tagir, Thank you for your input. However, we feel that this approach may add more complexity than is needed at this stage. It's a good point, and one that we think is reasonable to consider and evaluate as a possible follow on from this initial proposal.
Kind regards, Patrick > On 25 Jun 2020, at 05:04, Tagir Valeev <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello! > > To me, it looks like it's possible to make the better default > implementation. It could be done even as a separate static method: > > static <T> Stream<T> ofPusher(Consumer<Consumer<? super T>> pusher) { > return StreamSupport.stream(new Spliterator<>() { > private Spliterator<T> delegate; > > @Override > public boolean tryAdvance(Consumer<? super T> action) { > initDelegate(); > return delegate.tryAdvance(action); > } > > private void initDelegate() { > if (delegate == null) { > Stream.Builder<T> builder = Stream.builder(); // or use > SpinedBuffer directly > pusher.accept(builder); > delegate = builder.build().spliterator(); > } > } > > @Override > public void forEachRemaining(Consumer<? super T> action) { > if (delegate != null) { > delegate.forEachRemaining(action); > } else { > pusher.accept(action); > } > } > > @Override > public Spliterator<T> trySplit() { > initDelegate(); > return delegate.trySplit(); > } > > @Override > public long estimateSize() { > return Long.MAX_VALUE; > } > > @Override > public int characteristics() { > return 0; > } > }, false); > } > > In this case, we are buffering only if short-circuit operation or > splitting is requested. Otherwise, forEachRemaining will just delegate > to the pusher. > Now, the default implementation could be rewritten as > > <T, R> Stream<R> mapMulti(Stream<T> stream, BiConsumer<Consumer<? > super R>, ? super T> mapper) { > Objects.requireNonNull(mapper); > return stream.flatMap(e -> ofPusher(sink -> mapper.accept(sink, e))); > } > > And now, I don't think it's necessary to specialize it at all. > Probably it's not necessary to introduce mapMulti at all as well, as > now it's a trivial delegate to ofPusher. > > With best regards, > Tagir Valeev. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:58 PM Patrick Concannon > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Could someone please review myself and Julia's RFE and CSR for JDK-8238286 - >> 'Add new flatMap stream operation that is more amenable to pushing’? >> >> This proposal is to add a new flatMap-like operation: >> >> `<R> Stream<R> mapMulti(BiConsumer<Consumer<R>, ? super T> mapper)` >> >> to the java.util.Stream class. This operation is more receptive to the >> pushing or yielding of values than the current implementation that >> internally assembles values (if any) into one or more streams. This addition >> includes the primitive variations of the operation i.e. mapMultiToInt, >> IntStream mapMulti, etc. >> >> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238286 >> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8238286> >> csr: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248166 >> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8248166> >> >> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8238286/webrevs/webrev.00/ >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8238286/webrevs/webrev.00/> >> specdiff: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8238286/specdiff/specout.00/overview-summary.html >> >> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pconcannon/8238286/specdiff/specout.00/overview-summary.html> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> Patrick & Julia
