groovy-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Graeme Rocher <graeme.roc...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JDK8 Streams / Closure cast to interface
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2016 11:18:25 GMT
Jochen said - “If you want this really efficient, you have to skip the
generation of the Groovy Closure instance. This is doable and I plan
to do this, but it will be a breaking change (all open blocks would be
realised using the same class for example, having that instance would
even become optional).”

Could I recommend that since the new parser now supports the lambda
syntax that we add to Groovy the optimised version for lambdas and
keep the closure behaviour as is to avoid a breaking change?

This would mean that there is a visual syntactical difference between
closures and lambdas and the behaviour of lambdas will be closer to
Java thus not surprising folks coming from Java.

We could then keep the behaviour of closures the same as it is now
without it being a breaking change.

Thoughts?

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org> wrote:
>
>
> On 22.11.2016 19:37, Winnebeck, Jason wrote:
>>
>> I was referring to a compile-time generation of the class -- that the
>> Closure itself that is normally generated implements the interface natively.
>
>
> Which means we are talking about direct assignments to local variables only?
> I mean the static compiler can do that in more cases, but frankly, why
> should the static compiler even bother with creating a Closure?
>
>> That would make it equivalent to anonymous class in Java 7 and earlier for
>> calling functional (or any SAM type) methods. That wouldn't have any
>> problems on Android, and should be as efficient as Java without lambdas?
>
>
> Android is ok, yes. As efficient as Java without lambdas... well.. that I am
> not sure of. Even if you make it as an anonymous inner class that implements
> the interface and extends Closure, even if the interface method will just
> call doCall, you will still have to pay the initialization cost of the
> Closure, and Closure will inspect itself to set the maximum parameter number
> for example, you will still request a meta class and do some other things.
> So the init would not be as efficient. The method invocation should be
> similar to Java, if done from Java then, since there is no dynamic call. So
> here you would gain over todays Closure.
>
> But for typical usages of non-static Groovy the gain would be almost nil.
> Unless we can lift restrictions
>
>> I would assume the interface's method delegating to doCall would get
>> inlined. In other words, Groovy generating code like:
>>
>> class X {
>>         public static void main(String[] args) {
>>                 Stream.of(1).forEach(new x__closure1(X.class, X.class));
>>         }
>>
>>         private static class x__closure1 extends Closure<Void> implements
>> Consumer<Integer> {
>>                 public x__closure1(Object owner, Object thisObject) {
>>                         super(owner, thisObject);
>>                 }
>>
>>                 void doCall(Integer x) {
>>                         System.out.println(x);
>>                 }
>>
>>                 @Override
>>                 public void accept(Integer x) {
>>                         doCall(x);
>>                 }
>>         }
>> }
>>
>> From Groovy: Stream.of(1).forEach { println it }
>>
>> The new part being that Groovy added the accept method and implements to
>> the closure it already normally would have generated, and castToType would
>> not need to be called. All of the code manipulation is done at compile-time
>> so it is fully STC and Android compatible, and no reflection is in use. You
>> still have the a little more overhead of Closure object compared to Java
>> static inner class, but I imagine this must be a lot less than proxy, but
>> still allows Closure to use the owner/delegate patterns that Groovy is known
>> for, and I assume would not affect backwards compatibility as superclass
>> stays Closure.
>>
>> Of course, if it were possible for compiler to determine that the closure
>> is never using owner, delegate, or "thisObject", then it could be possible
>> to drop the "extends Closure" entirely if it can be proven that the
>> "closureness" of the object can never be observed. But that's likely not
>> possible as any method taking an interface could choose to check for
>> instanceof Closure and/or cast or do something special if Groovy closure is
>> passed in -- although is that even possible today since Groovy actually
>> passes in a proxy?
>
>
> It depends on if the implicit "this" is used or not. { println it } uses
> implicit this, thus cannot do it for sure. { this.println it }, no implicit,
> thus can be optimized.
>
> I am wondering what would happen if we had 2 versions, one with implicit
> this delegation logic, the other not. Because if the usage is just an
> appended block and the target is just a functional interface, you will not
> need the version with delegate.
>
> bye Jochen



-- 
Graeme Rocher

Mime
View raw message