On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 16:07:41 GMT, John Hendrikx <jhendr...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Good point, I never ever did that for `Node`s (and I don't know why I would >> need to), but you are right, it is indeed possible and therefore a possible >> scenario. > > I think this is overly cautious. Overriding equals on a class that did not > implement equals in a hierarchy you don't control is not a very reasonable > scenario. You will not be able to call `super.equals` with reasonable > results if the hierarchy did not implement it in the first place. This is > because there may be private data that you can't access for your equality > comparison (and `Node` has lots of that). We also use `WeakHashMap`s in > several areas already with subtypes of `Node`s as keys (I found `Region`, > `Parent` and `TreeView` being used as keys), so this kind of override should > probably be documented as being unsupported on `Node`. > > Perhaps it should even be made final so FX internals can rely on it being > correct. Makes sense. I think we should make `Node.equals()` final in this case. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1607#discussion_r1857061762
