Ah, if only one could define a type alias Streamable<T> = Supplier<Stream<T>>...
> On Aug 15, 2021, at 8:42 PM, Tagir F.Valeev <tval...@openjdk.java.net> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:28:23 GMT, CC007 <github.com+5381337+cc...@openjdk.org> > wrote: > >> create Streamable and ParallelStreamable interface and use them in >> Collection and Optional > > Mostly agreed with Brian. Judging from 7 years of using Stream API, I can say > that this abstraction would not solve any real problem. If you need a way to > create many identical streams on demand, just accept `Supplier<Stream<T>>`. > This allows more flexibility for clients. They can not only supply > `myCollection::stream` or `myOptional::stream` but also `() -> > Arrays.stream(myArray)`, `() -> IntStream.range(...).boxed()`, `() -> > myCollection.stream().filter(something)` or whatever else. A dedicated > `Streamable` interface is too limited and will require adapters in many cases > but you can already adapt anything to `Supplier<Stream<T>>`. People already > use `Supplier<Stream<T>>` idiom pretty often, so creating a new `Streamable` > interface would add an API mess: some people would stick with `Supplier` and > others would migrate to `Streamable`. So I vote to reject this PR. > > I said "mostly" because I think that PR is a good starting point for > discussion. It's much easier to explain which enhancement you are proposing > if you already present some code. And we are already at corelibs-dev, as PR > comments are mirrored there, and for some people, it's more comfortable to > discuss via GitHub interface, as you don't have to subscribe and get tons of > unrelated e-mails, you can concentrate on a single discussion only. So in my > opinion, it's completely ok to write code and create a PR before the > discussion, even if it's likely to be thrown away. > > ------------- > > PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5050 >
