use try-with-resources statement in MavenProperties

[Pankraz76]

Following this checklist to help us incorporate your
contribution quickly and easily:

• Make sure there is a JIRA issue filed
  for the change (usually before you start working on it). Trivial changes like typos do not
  require a JIRA issue. Your pull request should address just this issue, without
  pulling in other changes.
• Each commit in the pull request should have a meaningful subject line and body.
• Format the pull request title like [MNG-XXX] SUMMARY,
  where you replace MNG-XXX and SUMMARY with the appropriate JIRA issue.
• Also format the first line of the commit message like [MNG-XXX] SUMMARY.
  Best practice is to use the JIRA issue title in both the pull request title and in the first line of the commit message.
• Write a pull request description that is detailed enough to understand what the pull request does, how, and why.
• Run mvn clean verify to make sure basic checks pass. A more thorough check will
  be performed on your pull request automatically.
• You have run the Core IT successfully.

If your pull request is about ~20 lines of code you don't need to sign an
Individual Contributor License Agreement if you are unsure
please ask on the developers list.

To make clear that you license your contribution under
the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004
you have to acknowledge this by using the following check-box.

• I hereby declare this contribution to be licenced under the Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004

• In any other case, please file an Apache Individual Contributor License Agreement.

[gnodet]

That's wrong imho.
The one responsible for closing the out Writer should be the caller, as the writer is passed as an argument. Closing the PropertiesWriter will automatically close the out writer too, so that looks a bad idea to me.

[Pankraz76]

yes this one looks special. will check, merci.

[Pankraz76]

Closing the PropertiesWriter will automatically close the out writer too, so that looks a bad idea to me.

the scope of writer remains the same, so does the gc, it will flush in both cases, so the behavior seems consistent overall.

lets request some secret expertise @elharo. 🥷

[gnodet]

If the properties writer is not closed, it should be flushed immediately, gc can happen way after out is closed.

[Pankraz76]

it should be flushed immediately

yes then flush is mandatory. but is this really important?

Assuming order will remain the same when impl. will flush itself.

It feels like optimization not required by test nether by business case, assuming result is the same.

Only real difference seems explicit call, of whats done by gc, as well just as it is right now, we just calling flush before close by gc and flush again.

Never needed to use .flush as always the impl. is smart enough to do so.

Its a expensive operation just like finalize should never been called directly. thats some else regards never to be called by dev imho.

The cleanup order of the writer instance remains the same, calling close and therefore flush. Its not our regard of doing so. Thats why try to leverage autocloseable feature.