MikOfClassX

@mgsx-dev Well, it seems it's not conflicting at all and... "Approval not required". That's a sign :)

this is a very important fix. Is there anything wrong, stopping a merge into GDX master ?

PR came after issue. Api can be misused anyway, so this fix is welcome. No bother, we keep this fix internally. It will not hurt anyone.

> on that now with @dar-dev

the problem of libgdx public fields is a persecution. So, if a compiling issue is acceptable for you, why don't we just create accessors and make those fields private ?...

I'll never stress too much the lack of encapsulation is the real stopper of libgdx improvement. You know that already. BTW I'm not getting the GLES correlation with public fields.

it looks realy nice IMHO

@yuripourre class data uses per-instance memory (included the static instance), Now the question is "how much ?". I may agree with you that extra memory may have some impact as...