[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7789?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15978840#comment-15978840
]
Adrien Grand commented on LUCENE-7789:
--------------------------------------
+1 We could still use the {{@SuppressForbidden}} annotation if there are rare
cases that actually need a FileInputStream or a FileOutputStream.
> replace & forbid "new FileInputStream" and "new FileOutputStream" with
> Files.newInputStream & Files.newOutputStream
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7789
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7789
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Hoss Man
>
> I haven't looked into the details of this much, but saw these links today and
> thought it would be worth opening a jira for discussion...
> *
> https://dzone.com/articles/fileinputstream-fileoutputstream-considered-harmful
> * https://issues.jenkins-ci.org/browse/JENKINS-42934
> * https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8080225
> The crux of the issue being that the "FileInputStream" and "FileOutputStream"
> classes have finalizer methods with GC overhead that can be avoided using
> Files.newInputStream and Files.newOutputStream in their place.
> This seems like it would make these methods good candidates for forbidding in
> lucene/solr (if possible).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
