Hi Stuart, After having thought over your arguments about copyOf versus unmodifiableCopyOf length discussion (also with my colleague) I was thinking about why not create additional X.of(X) methods instead of X.copyOf(X). It would seem to me a logical enhancement in the sense of the existing API though.
-Patrick > Am 02.11.2017 um 23:04 schrieb Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com>: > > >> Why not using: >> >> coll.stream().collect(Collectors.toImmutableSet()) >> >> As Collectors.toImmutableSet() is currently implemented, with serial Stream >> it will create a single HashSet, add all the elements to it and call >> Set.of(HashSet.toArray()) with it. Pretty much the same as what Tagir >> proposes, but the Collector could be made more efficient in the future and >> with it, the optimization would automatically extend to Set.copyOf()... > This is mainly about whether Set.copyOf() is implemented in terms of > Collectors.toUnmodifiableSet(), or vice-versa, which then calls Set.of(T[]) > to do the actual creation. Some future optimization will probably replace > both of these implementations with calls to JDK internal methods that can > bypass the extra copying, so it doesn't really matter which one of these > calls the other right now. > > s'marks >
