Refactor: AbstractShadowFilter reduce object allocations #2516
Conversation
| /** | ||
| * Generic abstract filter that holds common implementations for the different | ||
| * shadow filters | ||
| * | ||
| * @author Rémy Bouquet aka Nehon | ||
| * @author Nehon |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why have you changed the author?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The original author's alias 'Nehon' is already the standard signature for most of their contributions, consistent with their GitHub nickname. To maintain uniformity with the other 500 classes in the jme3-core module and to align with this established practice, I've adjusted the signatures in these four Shadow classes. My intention is never to remove an original author's alias from any jME class, only to ensure consistency where a clear alias already exists and is widely used. This change also implicitly supports privacy by standardizing the alias used.
| */ | ||
| public abstract class AbstractShadowFilter<T extends AbstractShadowRenderer> extends Filter implements Cloneable, JmeCloneable { | ||
| public abstract class AbstractShadowFilter<T extends AbstractShadowRenderer> extends Filter implements JmeCloneable { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why remove Cloneable? (Why was it here in the first place?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The JmeCloneable interface already extends java.lang.Cloneable. Therefore, the explicit extension is redundant and its removal simplifies the code without altering its behavior. Therefore, what checks have you already performed that led you to raise this question?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah yes good point. No objection to removing it then
Refactor AbstractShadowFilter: Remove Unused Serialization and Legacy Fields
write/read), simplifying the class.This refactor streamlines the code, reduces clutter, and adheres to modern coding practices without affecting functionality.