> Is implementing Closable a "valueable" feature for us in the new API ? (I > think the answer is 'yes')
I'm not so sure how useful Closeable is here. It is handy in tests, but in production code you are never going to use the try-with-resources pattern, as you'll be using async calls for everything else. I think people not waiting on a returned CompletableFuture is a bigger issue, but maybe even that isn't important (see below). > There was a discussion about introducing some CompletableFuture seal() > method, which would be more like current close(). Yes, there was a BP which just ended going around in circles and I got frustrated and closed it. Part of the problem was there were many things being discusses at the same time, so now I just want to concentrate on the close inconsistency. > With this approach we should document very well that a seal() must be > called and about the risks of not calling that seal() What are those risks? If I never called close() or seal() on my WriteHandle, what is the worst thing that could happen? I don't think much bad could happen at all, because not calling close or seal is the same as crashing before you do. So not calling it means that the next person to open the ledger has to deal with it, which is a latency hit for them. Even in the case where you are rolling your ledger, and then continue writing to a new one, I don't think there's a problem. If you don't close, then any entries that have been successfully written will continue to be successfully written, so whether you record this in the metadata isn't important. And you don't need to fence, because in this case you are the writer. Anyhow, I'm not arguing for a particular solution here, just highlighting that the operation of "close" isn't as vital as it has always appeared to be. Cheers, Ivan
