10 |
|
* Recursive result-bearing ForkJoinTasks. |
11 |
|
* <p> For a classic example, here is a task computing Fibonacci numbers: |
12 |
|
* |
13 |
< |
* <pre> |
14 |
< |
* class Fibonacci extends RecursiveTask<Integer> { |
13 |
> |
* <pre> {@code |
14 |
> |
* class Fibonacci extends RecursiveTask<Integer> { |
15 |
|
* final int n; |
16 |
< |
* Fibonnaci(int n) { this.n = n; } |
16 |
> |
* Fibonacci(int n) { this.n = n; } |
17 |
|
* Integer compute() { |
18 |
< |
* if (n <= 1) |
18 |
> |
* if (n <= 1) |
19 |
|
* return n; |
20 |
|
* Fibonacci f1 = new Fibonacci(n - 1); |
21 |
|
* f1.fork(); |
22 |
|
* Fibonacci f2 = new Fibonacci(n - 2); |
23 |
|
* return f2.compute() + f1.join(); |
24 |
|
* } |
25 |
< |
* } |
26 |
< |
* </pre> |
25 |
> |
* }}</pre> |
26 |
|
* |
27 |
|
* However, besides being a dumb way to compute Fibonacci functions |
28 |
|
* (there is a simple fast linear algorithm that you'd use in |
30 |
|
* subtasks are too small to be worthwhile splitting up. Instead, as |
31 |
|
* is the case for nearly all fork/join applications, you'd pick some |
32 |
|
* minimum granularity size (for example 10 here) for which you always |
33 |
< |
* sequentially solve rather than subdividing. |
33 |
> |
* sequentially solve rather than subdividing. |
34 |
|
* |
35 |
|
*/ |
36 |
|
public abstract class RecursiveTask<V> extends ForkJoinTask<V> { |
37 |
|
|
38 |
|
/** |
39 |
< |
* Empty contructor for use by subclasses. |
39 |
> |
* Empty constructor for use by subclasses. |
40 |
|
*/ |
41 |
|
protected RecursiveTask() { |
42 |
|
} |
47 |
|
V result; |
48 |
|
|
49 |
|
/** |
50 |
< |
* The main computation performed by this task. |
50 |
> |
* The main computation performed by this task. |
51 |
|
*/ |
52 |
|
protected abstract V compute(); |
53 |
|
|