Yes we should, we should always be driving our library towards "mainstream"
java conventions when we can.
We have had a couple goes of making sure closable things are closable
(feature readers, etc...). Thanks for taking this next step.
--
Jody Garnett
On Wed, 6 Jun 2018 at 19:32, Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> wrote:
> Good thinking. This will require more work, but will most likely be best
> in the long term. We should probably deprecate the proposed Disposable
> class as well for good measure.
>
> Should we change all uses in GeoTools from dispose() to close()? This
> makes sense but will be a widespread change with impact on pull requests
> and future backports.
>
> Kind regards,
> Ben.
>
> On 07/06/18 10:41, Jody Garnett wrote:
> > You could swap this around, rename the dispose implementations to close,
> > and provide a deprecated default implementation of dispose that calls
> > close.
> > This way you can manage eventually remove dispose() from the API.
>
> --
> Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz>
> Director
> Transient Software Limited <https://transient.nz/>
> New Zealand
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
GeoTools-Devel mailing list
GeoTools-Devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
