On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 16:32:21 GMT, Michael Strauß <mstra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I've tried to do something similar for controls by replacing a lot of the > anonymous classes with concrete ones. I can't find the issue/discussion right > now, but Kevin measured a non-negligible increase in memory usage. I assume > it's because constant folding is doable for the constants in the methods of > the anonymous class, but not for the final fields in the concrete property > (because they are not really final when considering reflection). > > Because an application doesn't have a lot of windows and scenes, it's > possible that these changes won't have detrimental effects, but I suggest > measuring. I think that's not really needed; we'd be crippling any FX improvements if the criteria is that we can't use more memory than before? The better question is, is having less classes (improving the **common** case), and less code an acceptable trade-off versus the case where you have hundreds or thousands of scenes and windows? I think it is. These classes weigh-in at thousands of bytes already (and far more once their peer is created); we're not doing anyone any favors by being overly cautious here. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1819#issuecomment-2936263900
