Proposal: Automatic Resource Management

[Joshua Bloch]

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