Thread: Anonymous inner class with Action Listener and Abstract Action

I already known about anonymous inner class for example,

"I will try and post the code in a reply since I can't put it here because of, Post denied. New posts are limited by number of URLs it may contain and checked if it doesn't contain forbidden words."

I was googling and found this method of doing basically the same thing.

"I will try and post the code in a reply since I can't put it here because of, Post denied. New posts are limited by number of URLs it may contain and checked if it doesn't contain forbidden words."

So with anonymous inner classes I have to define the text of the button before implementing the anonymous inner class and with the AbstractAction I can define the text of the button at the same time is that the only difference or is there something else?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Steve

--- Update ---

JButton newGame = new JButton("New Game");
 
newGame.addActionListener(new ActionListener() {
        @Override
        public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event) {
              // code
       }
});

--- Update ---

I was googling and found this method of doing basically the same thing.

newGame = new JButton(new AbstractAction("New Game") {
 
          @Override
           public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent event) {
                //code
            }
});

yes they do, maybe I should be more specific, Is there any efficiency benefits to one or the other or is it just style preference?

thank you

After doing some more research on the subject matter I have found out that,

"The javax.swing.Action interface, and the corresponding class, javax.swing.AbstractAction, provide a useful mechanism to implement action listeners that can be shared and coordinated."

source: Java: Action, AbstractAction

Also after reading the API a little more I found out that the AbstractAction provides default implementations for the JFC Action interface.

Also,

"That Action implementations tend to be more expensive in terms of storage than a typical ActionListener"

So I came to the conclusion that since I'm not using and don't have a need for the Action interface in my current program I should stick with the ActionListener.

Thank you for the feedback,

Steve