Why is Files.lines (and similar Streams) not automatically closed?

Question

The javadoc for Stream states:

Streams have a BaseStream.close() method and implement AutoCloseable, but nearly all stream instances do not actually need to be closed after use. Generally, only streams whose source is an IO channel (such as those returned by Files.lines(Path, Charset)) will require closing. Most streams are backed by collections, arrays, or generating functions, which require no special resource management. (If a stream does require closing, it can be declared as a resource in a try-with-resources statement.)

Therefore, the vast majority of the time one can use Streams in a one-liner, like collection.stream().forEach(System.out::println); but for Files.lines and other resource-backed streams, one must use a try-with-resources statement or else leak resources.

This strikes me as error-prone and unnecessary. As Streams can only be iterated once, it seems to me that there is no a situation where the output of Files.lines should not be closed as soon as it has been iterated, and therefore the implementation should simply call close implicitly at the end of any terminal operation. Am I mistaken?

Answer 1

Yes, this was a deliberate decision. We considered both alternatives.

The operating design principle here is "whoever acquires the resource should release the resource". Files don't auto-close when you read to EOF; we expect files to be closed explicitly by whoever opened them. Streams that are backed by IO resources are the same.

Fortunately, the language provides a mechanism for automating this for you: try-with-resources. Because Stream implements AutoCloseable, you can do:

try (Stream<String> s = Files.lines(...)) {
    s.forEach(...);
}

The argument that "it would be really convenient to auto-close so I could write it as a one-liner" is nice, but would mostly be the tail wagging the dog. If you opened a file or other resource, you should also be prepared to close it. Effective and consistent resource management trumps "I want to write this in one line", and we chose not to distort the design just to preserve the one-line-ness.