BTW, Tomas Mikula wrote about this on http://tomasmikula.github.io/blog/2015/02/10/the-trouble-with-weak-listeners.html . There is a comment at the end that is worth a read too.
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:53 PM Jeanette Winzenburg <faste...@swingempire.de> wrote: > > Zitat von Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com>: > > Thanks for your input! > > Glad we didn't miss the "minimum bar" height - with the java doc being > really clear on that :) > > What I still don't quite get is the concern about "too early" and "not > cleaning up" - maybe I misunderstand the point entirely > > > > > As for whether the above is sufficient, it depends on what the > > listener does (what its purpose is).In this simple example, it seems > > unlikely that removing the listener when the instance of SomeClass > > goes out of scope will cause any problems. It's worth looking at > > what "doSomethingUseful" does to see if unregisters anything that > > ought to be unregistered (and now maybe won't be if the listener > > goes away early). > > > > if not doing that "doSomethingUseful" would cause a - more - terrible > misbehavior than a memory leak, would that mean that the > listening/update implementation in that specific case would have to be > re-thought? F.i. in the case of the ButtonSkin listening to control's > scene is changing global state which might be broken if it's not > reverted to not having a default/cancel registered? (what a horrible > sentence, sry ;) > > Hmm .. > > > >
