Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jim Janney <jjanney@shell.xmission.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: unnecessary code in Oracle example?
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 20:56:38 -0600
Organization: bilaterally symmetric
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <ydn61t5kf4p.fsf@shell.xmission.com>
References: <ydnr4bujt72.fsf@shell.xmission.com> <u6h5u.69447$yx6.64233@fx26.iad> <ydneh7ujm7q.fsf@shell.xmission.com> <l34an4$ic1$1@dont-email.me> <ydna9iijivg.fsf@shell.xmission.com> <l34jek$782$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c75a2e3068ccf6c98395286f3e40b97d"; logging-data="23845"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+0kPn8rYR5odbqTsdOxmJi"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0oODPPDXOEvvANPcRb6Bo8JvmG0= sha1:tHo4xvpsV/xbrTy2l0UpSv8gdno=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:26269

markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> writes:

> On 10/9/2013 1:21 PM, Jim Janney wrote:
>> Yes, in Java 7 you can have clean syntax and clean semantics.  Looks
>> like a win all around.
>>
>
> For Java 5+, with varargs you could do (not compiled):
>
> public class MyIoUtils {
>
>   public static void closeAll( Closeable ... toClose ) {
>     for( Closeable closeMe : toClose )
>       try {
>         if( closeMe != null ) closeMe.close();
>       } catch( IOException ex ) {
>         Logger.getLogger( "MyIoUtils" ).log( ex );
>       }
>   }
> }
>
> and get a somewhat cleaned up try catch
>
>  OutPutStream io1 = null;
>  BufferedStream bs = null;
>  try {
>    io1 = new OutputStream( ...
>    bs = new BufferedStream( io1, ...
>    // do stuff
>  }
>  finally {
>    MyIoUtils.closeAll( bs, io1 );
>  }
>
> Mostly I don't care for deep nesting, I think it reads poorly, and I
> think it can also be hard to trace out for a programmer reading the
> source.  Giving the concept of closing a lot of objects a name like
> "closeAll" promotes literate programming, imo.

Mmm... you're complicating the code with extra assignments and tests,
just to avoid one layer of nesting.  I like the version with two
try-finally blocks, partly because the lexical structure reflects what's
happening in the code: two independent cleanups.  But the Java 7 version
is better.

-- 
Jim Janney