Would second the motion to reduce redundancy where possible, as it reduces duplication of effort in testing, docs, etc. where, maybe, we can get GPars down to a core minimum of functionality, above and beyond what java provides; essentially as the (b)leading edge of concurrency.
We may reach a point where Java 1.9+ includes everything we could possibly provide in GPars 2.0+ thus making GPars redundant. Isn't that the best we could hope for ? To make the JVM realm the premier choice for parallel/concurrent solutions ? Just a thought. Thx Jim > Message du 03/01/18 19:51 > De : "Russel Winder" > A : "GPars Users" > Copie à : "Groovy_Users" > Objet : GPars 2 Stuff > > In GPars 1.X it was possible to do things such as: > > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].parallel.reduce{a, b -> Math.min(a, b)} > > Without GPars it is possible using Groovy to achieve the exact same > functionality on JDK8+ with: > > [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].parallelStream().reduce{a, b -> Math.min(a, b)}.get() > > The question is therefore whether to remove the GPars 1.X behaviour > from GPars 2.X since the functionality is available using nigh on the > same just using JDK8+ features, or to mock it up using the JDK8+ > features. > > Personally I am all for removing the GPars 1.X stuff from GPars 2.X, > Ockham's Razor etc., so this will be the default action unless people > get vocal and contribute. > > -- > Russel. > ========================================== > Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 > 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 > London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk > > > [ signature.asc (0.8 Ko) ]