Dirk Olmes wrote:
> I don't mind letting ObserverEvent inherit from EventObject. But for
> the rest of the java.util event stuff: Forget that. I've looked into
> that before I modeled the observer stuff the way it's now.
Extending EventObject works fine (just did it), and I agree about
Observable/Observer:
> Observable is not capable of distinguishing between different
> ObserverSubjects, it seems that the design was more like creating an
> Observable per subject.
I tend to agree, though EventObject/EventListener can be used without
Observable. Especially the EventListener interface hierarchy now has the
added advantage that it allows for checked observer interface compliance
at compile time and also more flexible, typed Event classes with
additional capabilities, like DataContextEvent's info Map (which we can
actually replace with real methods/state now!)
> DataContext. What good would it be to notify an object that hasn't
> changed that a transaction is going on?
Like I said, I wasn't sure.. :)
-h
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 11:06:23 EST