Proposal: Automatic Resource Management (original) (raw)
Joshua Bloch jjb at google.com
Wed Mar 4 19:54:47 PST 2009
- Previous message: Proposal: Automatic Resource Management
- Next message: Proposal: Automatic Resource Management
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mark, Hi.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Mark Reinhold <mr at sun.com> wrote:
> Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:37:41 -0800 > From: Joshua Bloch <jjb at google.com>
> It is perhaps worth reiterating that the "finally" (or other keyword) > solution really does make things more complex. Yes, but the complexity might be worthwhile.
Agreed. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't do it; just that we should only do it with our eyes open.
On the surface, at least, doing this in the language makes a lot more sense to me than doing it with an interface.
On the one hand, we did for-each with an interface. But on the other that was targeted at a more limited set of types, and it was no real hardship that the method that they had to implement Iterable.
> The superclass of a resource must not be a resource. Not clear. We could, e.g., allow a superclass to be a resource so long as the subclass does not override the disposal method,
Yep. That's what I meant to say, but now what I said. Oops;)
> Remember that Coin means "small change";) Indeed. Joe might disagree, but to my eye a worked-out proposal for keyword-based disposal methods could still meet the threshold of "small change".
Well, I'm happy to work it out. Then we'll have two alternatives to compare.
Regards,
Josh- Previous message: Proposal: Automatic Resource Management
- Next message: Proposal: Automatic Resource Management
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]