On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 21:47:05 GMT, John Hendrikx <jhendr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I see that this change has been reverted. That's good. >> >> FWIW, I disagree with the original premise of removing it. The subclass >> shouldn't have to know or care that the superclass method is empty or not. >> >> I looked through the current version, and no longer have any concerns about >> this PR. I'll let others formally review. > > Although there are many ways to implement this kind of inheritance, I do > think that what I did here was also a valid solution. The parent class was > already `abstract` -- all I did was to make the `processEndElement` abstract > instead of empty, forcing the subtypes to think about it and implement it. > Calling `super` is then no longer allowed. I did not remove `super` because > I knew it was empty, I removed it because it was now `abstract`. > The parent class was already abstract -- all I did was to make the > processEndElement abstract instead of empty, forcing the subtypes to think > about it and implement it ... > I did not remove super because I knew it was empty, I removed it because it > was now abstract. OK, that's a fair point then. And given that, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to doing something like this as part of a more targeted cleanup rather than a general "remove warnings" sort of cleanup. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/958
