There's a lot of FUD here. Note that coopsoft here are encouraging your doubt in ForkJoin so as to try and sell you a competing alternative: http://coopsoft.com/JavaProduct.html
Using the same logic I could claim that telephones are broken by design. Because nobody else can call you if you go for a blood test then leave the phone on hold for 2 days until they have the results, and you run up a large bill in the process. ForkJoin is *not* broken, blocking I/O threads are broken. If you want to handle multiple concurrent network requests then you should really be using an asynchronous API instead of sitting on a thread and waiting around for an answer. Let them call you back On 26 February 2014 04:10, Mark Derricutt <[email protected]> wrote: > So... When looking toward Java 8, "catching up in some areas" would be a >> fair assessment? >> > > Anyone have any thoughts on: > > http://java.dzone.com/articles/think-twice-using-java-8 > > and the linked: > > http://coopsoft.com/ar/Calamity2Article.html > > Looks like parallel streams in Java8/ForkJoin are broken by design - at > least with the streams API as they force you to use a common ForkJoinPool > which defaults to a limited number of threads - for the entire JVM..... > seems a little limiting.... > > Unless I'm missing something... > > Mark > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Java Posse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
