-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 80
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Added parallelization support to StreamIterator #234
Merged
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thoughts on
withParallelization()
andwithoutParallelization()
that toggles the flag and return theStreamIterable
object back? Might be easier to read inline.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
agreed!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was also planning on mentioning this, but you beat me to it. I do have one thought about this solution - it debilitates thread safety for shared instances of
StreamIterable
. The safest possible form of this API would be to keep thethis.parallel
variable but completely remove theenableParallelization
anddisableParallelization
methods.All that being said, I suppose it does not make too much sense for multiple threads to ever share a
StreamIterable
instance in practice - and the race condition that is introduced would simply involve one thread unintentionally using the parallel version of aStreamIterable
method when it preempts another thread that just calledenableParallelization()
on the sharedStreamIterable
instance.If we are fine with keeping this mutability (which I ultimately am, sorry for being pedantic), I would also prefer @MikeGost 's version for ease of use.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK. it's also pretty easy to just have it return a new StreamIterable object instead of changing the switch on the current object-- slightly worse for memory usage, but probably nbd in the grand scheme of things, and definitely more thread safe. Opinions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would keep it as is, echoing @lucaspcram's point above about having multiple threads sharing a
StreamIterable
not making much sense. However, if we have a fairly largeStreamIterable
, that could potentially be a significant memory usage impact. Might be worth putting a note about this not being thread-safe in the parallelization case.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with @MikeGost . Let's leave as is, but just note in the docstring that the class is not completely safe when shared between multiple threads (which of course, would be very strange way to use the class anyway).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
👍 cool, I'm on board with that. I added in a note to the docstring-- i feel like a shorter warning is more likely to be seen than a long explanation, so I kept it simple.