2011/1/25 Laurent PETIT <laurent.pe...@gmail.com>: > 2011/1/24 David Powell <djpow...@djpowell.net>: >> >>> apache commons io and spring framework, to name 2 things I know for >>> sure, are doing what you say: they swallow any exception that could be >>> thrown within the finally block, for the reasons you mention. >> >> True, but if the body doesn't throw an exception, but the close does, >> I wouldn't want the close exception swallowed. >> >> Consider if you are writing to a socket via a buffered stream - >> nothing may be written until the buffer is flushed when you call >> close(). This is of course why close() throws Exception in the first >> place. > > Could you please expand with an example, I'm not sure I'm following you. > Especially, if my memories don't cheat on me, calling close() ensures > Bufferd[Writer|OutputStream]s are flushed, for example. > > And also, what if the user code inside with-open throws an exception, > but the close() calls also throw an exception. > You cannot see the exception raised by close() anymore => you cannot > expect consistency with your solution ?
Answering to myself: memories half wrong. BufferedWriter guarantees it will call flush() during the close(). No such javadoc guarantee for BufferedOutputStream. Anyway, if the flush has not occured inside with-open body, there's almost nothing you can do from the outside ? (Or just don't use with-open in the first place ?) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
