Replace finalize() with Cleaner #139
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
and falls back to JDK8 finalize() if not.
|
See also the JIRA Ticket https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PDFBOX-5362 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Finalizers (method finalize()) are going to be deprecated for removal with JDK 18. See https://openjdk.java.net/jeps/421 for details.
The best way to replace the finalize() methods is by using the JDK 9 java.lang.ref.Cleaner. As PDFBox 3 targets JDK 8 this can not be used directly.
The attached patch implements a Cleaner using finalizers for JDK <= 8 and using java.lang.ref.Cleaner by reflection for JDK 9+.
The two remaining finalize() implementing classes are migrated to the new Cleaner.
I’m not really happy with the name and package org.apache.fontbox.util.PdfBoxInternalCleaner of the cleaner. Maybe you have an idea for a better place and name.
In theory this patch could be back ported to PDFBox 2, but I’m not sure if this is worth the risk.