[ 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