作为弱引用的听众的优点和缺点[英] Pros and Cons of Listeners as WeakReferences

问题描述

What are the pros and cons of keeping listeners as WeakReferences?

The big 'Pro' of course is that:

Adding a listener as a WeakReference means the listener doesn't need to bother 'removing' itself.

For those worried about the listener having the only reference to the object, why can't there be 2 methods, addListener() and addWeakRefListener()?

Those who don't care about removal can use the latter.

推荐答案

First of all, using WeakReference in listeners lists will give your object different semantic, then using hard references. In hard-reference case addListener(...) means "notify supplied object about specific event(s) until I stop it explicitly with removeListener(..)", in weak-reference case it means "notify supplied object about specific event(s) until this object will not be used by anybody else (or explicitly stop with removeListener)". Notice, it is perfectly legal in many situations to have object, listening for some events, and having no other references keeping it from GC. Logger can be an example.

As you can see, using WeakReference not just solve one problem ("I should keep in mind to not forget to remove added listener somewhere"), but also rise another -- "I should keep in mind that my listener can stop listen at any moment when there is no reference to it anymore". You not solve problem, you just trade one problem for another. Look, in any way you've forced to clearly define, design and trace livespan of you listener -- one way or another.

So, personally, I agree with mention what use WeakReference in listeners lists is more like a hack than a solution. It's pattern worth to know about, sometimes it can help you -- to make legacy code work well, for example. But it is not pattern of choice :)

P.S. Also it should be noted what WeakReference introduce additional level of indirection, which, in some cases with extremely high event rates, can reduce performance.

其他推荐答案

This is not a complete answer, but the very strength you cite can also be its principal weakness. Consider what would happen if action listeners were implemented weakly:

button.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
    // blah
});

That action listener is going to get garbage collected at any moment! It's not uncommon that the only reference to an anonymous class is the event to which you are adding it.

其他推荐答案

I have seen tons of code where listeners were not unregistered properly. This means they were still called unnecessarily to perform unnecessary tasks.

If only one class is relying on a listener, then it is easy to clean, but what happens when 25 classes rely on it? It becomes much trickier to unregister them properly. The fact is, your code can start with one object referencing your listener and end up in a future version with 25 objects referencing that same listener.

Not using WeakReference is equivalent to taking a big risk of consuming unnecessary memory and CPU. It is more complicated, trickier and requires more work with hard references in the complex code.

WeakReferences are full of pros, because they are cleaned up automatically. The only con is that you must not forget to keep a hard reference elsewhere in your code. Typically, that would in objects relying on this listener.

I hate code creating anonymous class instances of listeners (as mentioned by Kirk Woll), because once registered, you can't unregister these listeners anymore. You don't have a reference to them. It is really bad coding IMHO.

You can also null a reference to a listener when you don't need it anymore. You don't need to worry about it anymore.