Automatic Resource Management, V.2

Joshua Bloch jjb at
Mon Apr 20 07:15:05 PDT 2009

It is possible that we may end up with some other "auto" interfaces in
future.  And as mentioned, a package-based solution is 100% safe, as it
requires explicit import.  Of course I agree with you that package with a
single class in it is a bit suspect.  I think this is best left as an "open
issue" for the time being.



On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Rémi Forax <forax at> wrote:

> Joshua Bloch a écrit :
>> Rémi,
>> Good question. We did it to eliminate the possibility of name clashes in
>> existing programs. JBoss actually uses the name AutoCloseable. Types in
>> java.lang are automatically imported, and putting AutoCloseable in
>> avoids this issue. It doesn't make the construct any less
>> usable, as you don't have to mention AutoCloseable explicitly to use the
>> construct.
>> Josh
> I don't like the fact that the JDK will contains a package with only one
> interface
> just to avoid name clash that is hypothetical because classes of the
> current package are imported
> before java.lang ones and everybody should avoid to use import *.
> In my opinion, (which is biased) , I prefer sacrificing  source backward
> compatibility to having to take
> 15 minutes each year because I will have to explain to my students why the
> package
> with one interface exists.
> Else what about renaming (yes again) AutoCloseable to ARMCloseable ?
> Rémi

More information about the coin-dev mailing list