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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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
