On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:17 PM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
> Yes, I think we'd design things such that we'd have a consistent streaming
> approach for all things where it made sense, e.g. object collections, XML,
> SQL, JSON etc. We can debate specific method names down the track.
>
But keep in mind that the Java libraries have streaming support for object
collections baked in - so we should not duplicate unnecessarily but we can
improve/finesse as appropriate.
> Cheers, Paul.
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:49 PM Simon Sadedin <ssade...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 10:28 AM Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Also, if you have anything you'd particularly like to see in Groovy 4,
>>> please discuss. I'll have a slide on potential things in Groovy 4 in my
>>> gr8conf talk next week. I'd like to include as many sensible ideas as
>>> possible to make use of the opportunity to garner feedback on what our
>>> users are looking for.
>>>
>>> Some of the things currently on my list:
>>> * improved module support (including split package final steps)
>>> * further invoke dynamic improvements (including deferred merge to indy
>>> only)
>>> * stream-based replacements for XmlSlurper et al
>>> * groovydoc rework (assuming we manage to finish porting the current
>>> groovydoc to 3)
>>> * improved built-in type checking extensions (@NonNull et al)
>>>
>>
>> I am wondering if there would be receptiveness to adding streaming based
>> versions of Groovy's standard collection methods. ie: currently
>>
>> foo.collect { it * 2 }.grep { it > 10 }.take(3)
>>
>> fully evaluates the collect, then fully evaluates the grep, finally only
>> to take 3 results. Java streams now solves this as do other languages
>> (python generators, etc), but in Groovy you have to abandon the "groovy"
>> methods and use Java streams (which works somewhat).
>>
>> I could imagine this could be done just by adding 's' to all the methods:
>>
>> foo.collects { it * 2 }.greps { it > 10 }.takes(3)
>>
>> Of course people might find that a bit ugly and there could be different
>> syntaxes or solutions .... but it would be really nice to have this
>> "natively" in Groovy!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
