hi, i want just a simple `parallelStream` equivalent in kotlin.. does this make sense? ``` runBlock...

# coroutines

[poohbar]

hi, i want just a simple parallelStream equivalent in kotlin.. does this make sense?

runBlocking {
   myItems.map {
    GlobalScope.launch {
       // do something
    }
   }.forEach { it.join() }
}

// now do something with all items

[enleur]

check this https://kotlinlang.slack.com/archives/C1CFAFJSK/p1538665249000100

[poohbar]

lol wtf is this, why is it so complicated

[nwh]

I think your solution works fine @poohbar, but of course GlobalScope#launch uses the default dispatcher (common pool)

[enleur]

it depends on what you need. if you’re doing CPU work, just go with parallelStream

[gildor]

Just use joinAll() instead of forEach { it.join() }
If you run this in coroutine scope (like in your runBlocking case) no need even join, scope will wait for all child coroutines

Worker pool pattern needs if you want to limit parallelism.

Also depends on type of task (blocking/non blocking, io or cpu bound)

[gildor]

Also therr is feature request about worker pool support in kotlinx.coroutines
https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/issues/172

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

With structured concurrency, you don’t need the joins at all. The outer coroutine will wait for all its children to finish, so you just need to launch your worker coroutines from the enclosing scope instead of GlobalScope.

runBlocking {
  myItems.forEach {
    launch(Dispatchers.Default) {
      // Do something.
      println("Processing $it…")
      Thread.sleep(it * 1000L)
      println("$it finished.")
    }
  }
}

println("All done.")

Prints:

Processing 1…
Processing 2…
Processing 3…
1 finished.
2 finished.
3 finished.
All done.

(For actually blocking work though, you should use <http://Dispatchers.IO|Dispatchers.IO> not Dispatchers.Default).

[gildor]

CoroutineScope can help, it’s true, but you cannot get result of invocation and I still not sure that CoroutineScope solution for multiple coroutines is better than more explicit joinAll()

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

I can see an argument for the implicit join not being obvious (i had the same thought initially), but I think that might just be because we’re all still very new to reading structured concurrency-based code – the instinct is “it’s spawning a new thread it’s going to leak”, instead of “it’s spawning a new thread, the parent is going to wait”, and that habit will just take time to change.

[Zach Klippenstein (he/him) [MOD]]

Kotlin maintainers keep stressing that GlobalScope should be used very rarely, and so doing the “right thing” here and using the parent scope to launch children makes the `join`s redundant. If the example was using async then yes you’d need some processing at the end, but since it’s using launch it looks like the intention of this code is just to not leave the runBlocking coroutine until all the child work is done, which is why structured concurrency was introduced in the first place. I would expect this sort of pattern will get more common and start to look less suspicious over time