On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:47:44 GMT, Jeanette Winzenburg <faste...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> So this begs the question: Do we still want to do this? Is the cleanup >>> worth the extra memory used? >> >> I'm not sure. This raises the opposite question: are there any places where >> we can benefit from introducing anonymous >> classes instead of the current implementation? >> In my own code, I prefer the readability and conciseness over performance. >> However, since JavaFX is a library, we might >> want to go with the performance route. I don't know how important the memory >> consumption is for users in this case or >> the other similar cases. > > Just playing devil's advocate :) > > Technically, there's a functional difference between the inline extension and > useage of SimpleXX: in the former, > getName returns the current name of mapped property, in the latter it returns > its name at the time of creating the > mapped property. Afaics, there is nothing in the spec of getName that > prevents custom implementations with name (and > bean) being mutable (the SimpleXX have implemented them immutable, but then > they are only default implementations). Not > that I can imagine any use-case for it, but if they exist, the new mappings > might break existing code. Getting back to this, I think we shouldn't make the change from inner classes to SimpleXxxxProperty objects proposed by this PR. As for whether we should consider changing some internal instance of SimpleXxxxProperty (which I think wouldn't run afoul of the hypothetical problem raised by @kleopatra ), we could file a new Enhancement request if you like, but it's probably not all that critical, unless we were to find a few in the base Node or Control classes that could yield big savings. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jfx/pull/141
