On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 01:46:17 GMT, Nir Lisker <nlis...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> I think I extracted this when I discovered that I needed two implementations >> (caching one and one that doesn't need caching, to save more memory). >> >> Looking at it now (over a year later) I suppose it could also be an >> interface. There is no risk that any of this gets exposed as the property >> classes will all create a private class to implement the abstract methods. >> >> It can be changed at any time as it is internal. If we want to make it an >> interface, I'm going to need to think of a good name for it >> (`ListenerDataProvider`, `ListenerDataStore`, ... ) > > Just making sure you didn't forget to consider this. Fine to leave as is also. I'll leave it if you don't mind, as said, we're not locked in for now. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/1081#discussion_r1990431576
