On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 00:22:59 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I can somehow remember asking Richard Bair why JavaFX internally does not >> use Simple* but creates the anonymous subclasses and he said it's memory >> reason - Simple* uses more memory because of the additional fields > > That doesn't seem right. The additional fields are captured in the > anonymous class anyway (same as in lambdas). > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2020 at 1:53 AM Tom Schindl <notificati...@github.com> wrote: > >> I can somehow remember asking Richard Bair why JavaFX internally does not >> use Simple* but creates the anonymous subclasses and he said it's memory >> reason - Simple* uses more memory because of the additional fields >> >> — >> You are receiving this because you were assigned. >> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub >> <https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/141?email_source=notifications&email_token=AI5QOM5SILAYZUP3TZVCIW3RGGEHTA5CNFSM4LDJHCF2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEODG4OY#issuecomment-596012603>, >> or unsubscribe >> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AI5QOM2UNAZKYJUMYJSER7TRGGEHTANCNFSM4LDJHCFQ> >> . >> the subclass saves the owner field who is a static null, not? ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/141
