dl at cs.oswego.edu
Fri May 10 11:09:54 PDT 2013
On 05/10/13 13:51, Brian Goetz wrote:
> Many slippery-slope questions come to mind -- doesn't this beg for:
> - Bag interface
YAGNI. "Bag" just means "not a Set or List or other Collection subinterface"
> - Bag decorators (unmodifiableBag, synchronizedBag)
unmodifiableCollection would work fine.
> - Non-concurrent implementation, perhaps based on HashSet
Yes. This is one thing that stalled previous discussion.
It is plausible, and would be a good alternative to ArrayList
for uses that call contains() frequently, but not all that
> Given all that, though, a toBag() collector is nice, and sidesteps issues of
> merge functions.
> On 5/10/2013 1:02 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
>> On 05/09/13 15:14, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>> What others have I missed?
>> The lambda-dev post by John Rose reminded me that we were going
>> to revisit the need for ConcurrentHashBag: A (massive) simplification
>> of CHM that only conforms to Collection interface (so among
>> other things, duplicates are allowed), and is handy
>> for shoving unordered elements for concurrent aggregation.
>> I've had a version of this sitting around for a year or so...
More information about the lambda-libs-spec-observers