On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rasmus Svensson <r...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > 2011/1/27 Ken Wesson <kwess...@gmail.com>: >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Michael Gardner <gardne...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:24 AM, Rasmus Svensson wrote: >>> >>>> If you simply want all tasks to be performed as quickly as possible, >>>> one alternative could be to use an ExecutorService (perhaps one >>>> created with newFixedThreadPool) with its invokeAll method. invokeAll >>>> takes a collection of callables (in clojure terms: you can pass it a >>>> seq of zero-arg functions) and returns a collection of futures. An >>>> ExecutorService could perhaps give you fine-grained control. >>>> >>>> I recently wrote a blog post on this; you might find it interesting: >>>> http://blog.raek.se/2011/01/24/executors-in-clojure/ >>> >>> Thanks for the tip. By coincidence, I just stumbled across ExecutorService >>> yesterday via the example at http://clojure.org/concurrent_programming. I'm >>> never thrilled about having to use Java APIs directly, but in this case an >>> ExecutorService does what I want much better than pmap, and isn't too >>> difficult to use. >> >> Perhaps pmap should be rewritten to use ExecutorService, if that is so. > > Actually, 'pmap' is built on top of 'future' which is built on top of > an ExecutorService.
Then how come they have different performance characteristics? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
