Noel J. Bergman wrote:
The support for them in older jdks is buggy (I believe the early IBM ones, especially), and they are not specified very clearly in the java language spec.- I see an inner class. these not considered evil anymore? Why not?Why would anyone consider inner classes evil? They are an absolutely appropriate and useful language feature when used properly.
something like that. I forgot :D
hmm. I think maybe the method instead should be set<T>Listener then so the contract is clear. The code simply replaces the old listener with the new one.- there can only be one listener instead of the multiple listenersI haven't looked (at all) at the code, but if it allows only a single listener, then it should throw an exception if a second add is attempted:public synchronized void add<T>Listener(<T>Listener listener) throws java.util.TooManyListenersException; Sometimes you do want to allow only one listener. Whether or not that is the case here is another issue.
cheers,
- Leo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]