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 <m...@talios.com> 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 javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
