Hi Tagir,
Thanks for working on this. This looks really cool! And thanks Peter for
agreeing to sponsor it.
I can help out with the CSR. My first bit of advice about the CSR process is to
hold off until the specification is complete. :-)
I think the intent of the API is fine, but I think some details of the returned
collector need to be ironed out first.
1. The spec doesn't say what the returned collector's supplier, accumulator,
combiner, and finisher do. On the one hand, we don't necessarily want to
describe the actual implementation. On the other hand, we need to specify how
the thing actually behaves. One can certainly deduce the intended behavior from
the description, but this really needs to be specified, and it mustn't rely on
the reader having to derive the required behaviors. Since the actual
implementation is fairly simple, the spec might end up being rather close to the
implementation, but that might be unavoidable.
I'm envisioning something like this:
- supplier: creates a result container that contains result containers
obtained by calling each collector's supplier
- accumulator: calls each collector's accumulator with its result container
and the input element
... and similar for the combiner and finisher functions.
2. Characteristics
- UNORDERED: should the returned collector be UNORDERED if *either* of the
provided collectors is UNORDERED? (Current draft says *both*.)
- CONCURRENT: current draft seems correct
- IDENTITY_FINISH: clearly not present; perhaps this should be specified
3. Parameter naming
The collector parameters are referred to as "specified collectors" or "supplied
collectors". Other "higher-order" collectors refer to their underlying
collectors as "downstream" collectors. I think it would be useful to work the
"downstream" concept into this collector. This would enable the opening summary
sentence of the doc to be something like, "Returns a collector that is a
composite of two downstream collectors" or some such. (But see naming below.)
4. Naming
Sigh, naming is hard, and I know there was a fair amount of discussion in the
previous thread and earlier in this one, but it seems like there's still some
dissatisfaction with the name. (And I'm not particularly thrilled with
teeingAndThen myself.) In a few minutes I've managed to come up with a few more
names that (mostly) don't seem to have been proposed before, and so here they
are for your consideration:
- compound
- composite
- conjoined
- bonded
- fused
- duplex
Discussion:
A "composite" evokes function composition; this might be good, though it might
be odd in that collectors can't be composed in the same way that functions are.
"Compound" might be a useful alternative. In chemistry, two substances are
combined (or bonded, or fused) to form a single substance, which is a compound.
"Conjoin" seems to adequately describe the structure of the two collectors, but
it lacks somewhat the connotation of unifying them.
In an earlier discussion, Brian had pushed back on names related to
split/fork/merge/join since those are currently in use in streams regarding
splitting of input elements and merging of results. In describing how the
current proposal differs, he said that elements are "multiplexed" to the
different collectors. Since we're doing this with two collectors, how about
"duplex"? (I note that Jacob Glickman also had suggested "duplex".)
s'marks
On 8/20/18 1:48 AM, Tagir Valeev wrote:
Hello!
A CSR is created:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8209685
(this is my first CSR, hopefully I did it correctly)
With best regards,
Tagir Valeev.
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 2:06 PM Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Tagir,
I think this looks very good. It just needs a CSR. Will you file it?
Regards, Peter
On 08/19/2018 11:24 AM, Tagir Valeev wrote:
Hello, Brian!
Of the three phases, teeing is the most important and least obvious, so
I think something that includes that in the name is going to be
helpful. Perhaps "teeingAndThen" is more evocative and not totally
unwieldy.
Ok, sounds acceptable to me. Renamed pairing to teeingAndThen.
By the way looking into CollectorsTest.java I found some minor things to
cleanup:
1. `.map(mapper::apply)` and `.flatMap(mapper::apply)` can be replaced with
simple `.map(mapper)` and `.flatMap(mapper)` respectively
Does IntelliJ have an inspection for eliminating such locutions?
Sure, that's how I found them. Well, I took the liberty to fix these two things.
2. In many methods redundant `throws ReflectiveOperationException` is
declared while exception is never thrown
For test code where a significant fraction of test cases are going to
throw something, we often do this, since its easier to just uniformly
tag such methods rather than thinking about which test methods actually
throw the exception and which don't. So I think this is harmless
(though cleaning it up is harmless too.)
I'm not thinking about this, because my IDE thinks for me :-) Ok, I'll
leave them as is for now.
You may want to optimize the EnumSet mechanics for the case where
neither collector has interesting characteristics.
Added a special case when reported characteristics for either of
collectors are empty or IDENTITY_FINISH only.
I think this should be a common case.
The updated webrev is posted here (along with Peter suggestion to
rename finisher to merger):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tvaleev/webrev/8205461/r3/
Also copyright year is updated
With best regards,
Tagir Valeev
