On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 23:35:56 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I note that this also changes the wrapper property objects from anonymous >> subclasses of XxxxxPropertyBase to SimpleXxxxxProperty. This is more than >> just a readability cleanup. It's probably fine for this case, but that's why >> I want a second reviewer. > >> I note that this also changes the wrapper property objects from anonymous >> subclasses of XxxxxPropertyBase to SimpleXxxxxProperty. This is more than >> just a readability cleanup. It's probably fine for this case, but that's why >> I want a second reviewer. > > Isn't SimpleXxxxxProperty exactly made for XxxxxPropertyBase with the > built-in overrides for the bean and the name? When is this substitution not > fine? 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> > . > ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/141
