is there a practical difference between these two ways of converting a `java.util.Stream` to a `Flow...

# coroutines

[Joe]

is there a practical difference between these two ways of converting a java.util.Stream to a Flow? would the first generally be the preferred way (or is there another, more idiomatic way?):

result.iterator().asFlow().onCompletion { result.close() }

vs

flow {
    result.use {
        for (edge in it) {
            emit(edge)
        }
    }
}

[gildor]

I would create a feature request for kotlinx.coroutines to add Stream.asFlow()

Second looks better for me

[elizarov]

👍 Please do. PR would be also welcome (should be added kotlinx-coroutines-jdk8 module).

[elizarov]

The only design problem that I see is that a Stream is single-use, while Flow is multi-use. In the similar case of converting a channel to a flow we’ve picked a different name for conversion method (consumeAsFlow) to highlight the fact that the resulting Flow is special — it can be consumed just one. In fact, it must be consumed exactly once.

[elizarov]

Same with streams. Some streams might be backed by open resources (see Files streams) and must be used in order to get the underlying resources closed.

[Joe]

https://github.com/Kotlin/kotlinx.coroutines/issues/1601 👍