stream() / parallelStream() methods

Doug Lea dl at
Sat Feb 9 08:31:17 PST 2013

On 02/09/13 11:07, Kevin Bourrillion wrote:

> But the choice isn't precisely between those two; it's between having one or
> both.  I assume that the stream().parallel() option has to exist regardless, and
> so users will encounter it in code, and they /will/ have to start discussions
> with each other about "why did you do s().p() instead of .pS(), or vice versa,
> and what's the difference anyway?" Then, every time someone /adds/ a stream()
> method to their type they then face the question of whether they're supposed to
> add parallelStream() too, etc.

Well, I don't like the parallel() method on Stream anyway, so I'll
let others take over from here...


More information about the lambda-libs-spec-observers mailing list