On Mar 9, 7:17 pm, Greg Krimer <gkri...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have been finding it convenient to extend Handler in many of my > activities to handle messages specific to the activity. The handler > sublass is an inner class of the activity and needs to access its > state. I am wondering if there is any performance difference between > making the handler subclass static and passing in the activity > explicitly in its constructor or making the subclass an "instance > class" and letting the vm worry about my accessing members of the > containing activity.
There's no real difference between explicitly and implicitly passing the outer-class reference around. Your example above is essentially doing what javac does automatically. Static inner classes have some useful properties, e.g. you know they're not modifying state in the parent, and you can use Class.newInstance() with them. There's no performance magic though. If you're really curious, write it both ways in trivial source files, compile them, then view them with "javap -private -verbose <Class>" or "dx --dump <Class.class>". They should look about the same. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
