Proposal: Deprecate Builders
richard.bair at oracle.com
Tue Mar 26 09:17:22 PDT 2013
> Last, but not least: You mentioned Pack200. Is there a way that by using Pack200 and the JVM's lazy class loading, one might be able to avoid the class loading time of the Builder classes when not using them?
Builders already are not loaded if they are not used, so you only pay the class loading price if you use them (and to whatever extent FXML is using them, but FXML is loaded with reflection anyway so it isn't the fastest thing in the world). Pack200 only reduces the size of the class files while being transported, but you can't read directly out of a Pack200 file so you have to decompress it first. This means that the extra bytes has an impact on startup even if you aren't using the classes because there are more bytes to be read from disk, a bigger index in the jar, etc, and more static footprint space on disk is taken up.
More information about the openjfx-dev