Message-ID: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3750-c3162185608@github.com>
From: "jgardn3r (@jgardn3r)" <noreply+jgardn3r@github.com>
To: "pgjdbc/pgjdbc" <noreply+pgjdbc-pgjdbc@github.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2025 02:13:20 +0000
Subject: Re: [pgjdbc/pgjdbc] PR #3750: Use `BufferedInputStream` with `FileInputStream`
In-Reply-To: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3750@github.com>
References: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc-3750@github.com>
List-Id: <gh-pgjdbc-pgjdbc.github.com>
X-GitHub-Author-Login: jgardn3r
X-GitHub-Comment-Id: 3162185608
X-GitHub-Comment-Type: issue_comment
X-GitHub-Issue: 3750
X-GitHub-Repo: pgjdbc/pgjdbc
X-GitHub-Type: comment
X-GitHub-Url: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/3750#issuecomment-3162185608
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

> @jgardn3r , would you be open to update the PR as per [#3750 (comment)](https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/3750#issuecomment-3160666440) ?

Happy to make the changes.

A few things that I have thought while implementing these changes:
* I'm not a huge fan of the signature `IoUtils.newBufferedInputStream(File)` (because, of course, naming is hard)
   * I think if I were naming it, I would call it `FileUtils.newInputStream(File)` similar to that of the `Files.newInputStream()`
   The reason being: if you are always going to expect file streams to be buffered, then there is no real point to put it in the name. If you want a file stream, it will be buffered, whether you like it or not.
   * There are many uses where the argument is a `String`, so I would add an overload for that
* The exclusions list references an imaginary `Unsafe.class` file. Should I replace that with the new file?
* Should test code be excluded or updated to use the new util?

What do you guys think?