On Sat, 7 Mar 2020 00:30:21 GMT, Tom Schindl <github.com+52631+tomson...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> 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? >From what I see, they save the same data. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/141
