Hello!
Current documentation for BaseStream.onClose() does not specify
explicitly how the stream would behave if additional close handlers
are registered after the stream is consumed or even closed. The
implementation actually allows registering the additional close
handlers after consumption or closure and close() method is
idempotent: newly registered handlers are perfectly called:
Stream<String> s = Stream.of("content");
s = s.onClose(() -> System.out.println("A"));
s.forEach(System.out::println);
s = s.onClose(() -> System.out.println("B"));
s.close(); // prints A and B
s = s.onClose(() -> System.out.println("C"));
s.close(); // prints C
(removing "s =" produces the same result).
I think if such behavior is intended, it should be explicitly noted in
the specification, as third-party implementations of BaseStream
interface should provide consistent behavior. Or at least it should be
noted that some BaseStream implementations may have idempotent close()
method, so the derived AutoCloseable objects (which own the BaseStream
object) should be aware about this behavior and provide idempotent
close() method as well. Without knowing this one may write:
class MyObject implements AutoCloseable {
private BaseStream<?, ?> s;
public MyObject(BaseStream<?, ?> s) {
this.s = s;
}
@Override
public void close() throws Exception {
if(s != null) {
s.close();
s = null;
}
}
}
Such code closes the stream only once, so newly registered handlers
will not be called if MyObject::close is called the second time.
However, to my opinion the current behavior is weird and should be
changed in order not to allow registering new close handles (throwing
IllegalStateException) when the stream is already closed, or even
better when the stream is linked/consumed. As far as I know currently
in JDK close handlers are registered only for non-consumed stream, so
such change would not break existing JDK code (though may break some
strange third party code). It should be noted that AutoCloseable
interface discourages idempotent close() methods (though not forbids
them).
What do you think?
With best regards,
Tagir Valeev.
