On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 06:29 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> You are right. Making the simple string more meaningful was the main
> reason for the 'owner' of the subject, which we made a class for the
> first
> cut. The combination of owner and subject name is meant to be unique so
> that two equally named subjects do not collide on the same bus; using a
> class as namespace-enabled 'tag' was the first thing that came to my
> mind,
> although I could immediately come up with scenarios where that would
> break
> down as well. Maybe a unique name should be made of the class package
> and
> subject name like e.g. "my.nifty.class/FooSubject", exposed via (say)
> getSubjectIdentifier() and simply using getOwner()/getSubjectName() at
> first..
> This is basically an insolvable problem without central registry.
> So just adding the getters won't do much harm for now, I guess.
Well, aside from my original question, current implementation of
EventSubject will *always* require a reference to the subject instance
(e.g. as public static final EventSubject XYZ), since EventSubject
doesn't implement hashCode() and/or equals() method. So essentially,
creating a subject for the same owner and name twice, will produce two
different subjects (at least from the point of view of EventManager). I
don't think this was intended like that?
So maybe just switch back to Strings?
Andrus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 19:51:29 EDT