The trouble with j.u.s.Streams is that they don't call close on error or terminal operations so they can easily leave resources open, details here. <https://stackoverflow.com/a/28814024/1331935.>
And since they are unusable after being touched, I don't think we should use allow CLOSE_CLOSABLE functionality. On Tuesday, June 20, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-5, Tatu Saloranta wrote: > > I don't think you should need any additional processing, since this > feature is only handled by ObjectMapper/ObjectWriter, based on .... > oh. Implementation of `Closeable`. But. What we really is > `AutoCloseable`... > > So, the big question is... since `AutoCloseable` was added in Java 7, > and since we can rely on that now with 2.9, should we use that > instead. > > It's a kind of sizable change, but seems to me like the Right Thing To Do? > Or, should we wait until 3.0? > > -+ Tatu +- > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Jeff Maxwell <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > > Currently I do not consider the CLOSE_CLOSEABLE option when dealing with > > j.u.s.Streams. > > > > Given the nature of j.u.s.Streams I believe this is the safest choice, > > especially since CLOSE_CLOSEABLE defaults to 'false'. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > "jackson-dev" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send > an > > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jackson-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
