Simplifying sequential() / parallel()
brian.goetz at oracle.com
Fri Mar 22 16:29:00 PDT 2013
> One of the design principles for this API is that parallel transforms
> will not be automatic. There is a parallel() method for that. This
> hasn't changed, right?
Correct. Parallelism is always explicit.
> It seems to me that the ground rules are changing, driven by some latent
> aspects of the implementation. But I'll have to see if/how these changes
> affect my sample code before I can respond.
No, it has nothing to do with the implementation. It was identified
that complexities in the model -- which were no longer as important
because of other past simplifications -- could be removed, making the
user model and specification simpler. As often happens, this also makes
the implementation simpler and more performant, but that's a secondary
benefit. The reality was that the existing sequential() / parallel()
were overly general, complicated, and did not admit efficient
More information about the lambda-libs-spec-experts