valhalla-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 3

Peter Levart peter.levart at gmail.com
Mon Dec 28 07:17:36 UTC 2015


Hi,

It seems this thread has not mentioned an existing tool used to 
abstract-away the selection of a particular implementation class - the 
good old static factory method. See EnumSet for an example. Valhalla has 
hooks to make the selection possible at runtime given the instantiated 
type parameters:

public abstract class PackedList<any T> implements List<T> {

     public static <any E> PackedList<E> newInstance() {
         if (E.class == boolean.class) {
             return new BooleanBitPackedList();
         } else {
             return new DefaultPackedList<E>();
         }
     }

     private static class BooleanBitPackedList extends 
PackedList<boolean> { ... }

     private static class DefaultPackedList<any T> extends PackedList<T> 
{ ... }
}


Regards, Peter


On 12/25/2015 01:31 AM, Thomas W wrote:
> Hi Vitaly,
>
>> I don't see why types/wrappers over one other type are special.  Optional
> is special in that when it abstracts over a ref type the
>> semantic of the type can be fulfilled naturally by virtue of ref types
> already having an absence value: null.  The main point is you
>> can exploit type info when it's provided.  That's kind of the point of
> specialization.
>
> Well, when you're talking about specializing ArrayList<something> I keep
> feeling that ArrayList<Optional<T>> is much more useful -- in terms of
> anybody using it -- than ArrayList<boolean>. Am I wrong in this?
>
> Monads/ wrappers such as Optional are probably an "obvious" case to
> optimize, since they're at the same cardinality & logical level as the
> underlying data;  but currently add significant instance, indirection,
> wrapping & storage cost.
>
> If we want to go to lengths & consider tackling storage size & efficiency,
> why not tackle it generically at the storage level -- with a system for
> "unpacking" value types into arrays -- rather than by specializing at the
> Collection implementation (eg. ArrayList) level?
>
> If we want to address storage, array[] is where storage of pluralities
> mostly happens. Why not target that directly?
>
> I could propose a "packedarray" type, which would implement (either at
> specialization or at VM level) as an array for each component field. Store
> & retrieve would be automatically packed & unpacked into it.
>
> We would then have:
>
> public class ArrayList<any T> {
>      packedarray T[] elements;
>      int size;
> }
>
> Store & retrieve from 'elements' would inline the packing & unpacking of
> elements. Functionality (at least some) needed for operations within the
> collection would also be inlined -- eg. inlined versions of equals() and
> hashCode() method would be available, to operate directly onto the packed
> layout.
>
> There'd be some heuristic that the value-type was small & simple enough to
> benefit from this -- I'd suggest this would apply for value-types with no
> more than 4 fields for now. Larger value-types would just get stored flat
> in a single array.
>
> If we are trying to target storage, I think general approaches are worth
> considering vs. code-level specialization.
>
> I'd far prefer to consider boolean -> single-bit storage in a generic
> "packed array" that's implemented once, which everyone -- including all
> user types implemented subsequently to the library -- get to use
> automatically, than need to code that stuff M*N times (M per-Collection, N
> per Element Type) in the library.
>
>> How is this different from creating named types for all those
> specializations? It's always preferable to put more burden on lib
>> author than its users, when given the choice.
> Nice intent, but placing support in the library means it's not extensible &
> it's far less useful. The type instantiation site is outside the library --
> if somebody needs a special collection for their type, that can be
> instantiated out there too.
>
> If we require specialized sections of code in the library, it means only
> Java core types can get that special support -- and probably not many of
> them. Essentially other people's small types & wrappers become second-class
> citizens -- ArrayList will offer bets support only for JDK value types, etc.
>
> Many many great libraries such as Guava, Apache, Spring, Hibernate etc are
> leaders in innovation. They implemented features & types the Java platform
> needed, long before Java were aware they needed it :) They have also led
> with great OO design and innovation, often when the core platform sorely
> lacked it. Numerous times Java has followed the third-party & gained from
> this innovation.
>
> The Java platform & ecosystem need to support third-party libraries --
> including their types --  as first-class citizens. M*N implementation costs
> and having efficient support only for "core Java" stuff makes it all seem a
> bit limited, in my view.
>
>
> Regards,
> Thomas



More information about the valhalla-dev mailing list