Guys,
Sorry I haven't had a chance to read this thread - I've been on the
road since thursday. I'll be back in the real world tomorrow and i'll
get back to you all then.
- Neil
--- Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "Chuck Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > sc.add("");
> > > Sends event OK - BUT eventCollection == oc.
> > > This is a problem, as if the listener then uses the collection,
> > > it will not
> > > be synchronized. Big problem.
> >
> > I don't think this will actually be a problem. If calls to sc are
> > synchronized, then anything that the listener does to the backing
> collection
> > (oc in this case) is still within the context of the synchronized
> call on
> > sc. Therefore, access to the backing collection is indirectly
> synchronized.
> > Or am I missing something here?
>
> Intruiging. Yes, you are probably correct, so long as the listener
> operates
> in the same thread in a normal fashion. I was thinking of trying to
> spot if
> the ObservedCollection was being decorated and inform it, but maybe
> thats
> over zealous, and javadoc will do.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Michael Heuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:02 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [collections] NotifyingCollections - capturing rich
> > > non-uniform
> > > data
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > The biggest problem with all this is that the collection
> returned by
> > > > > getSource() on the event. If the observed collection is
> > > wrapped (eg. by
> > > a
> > > > > SyncronizedCollection) then getSource() SHOULD return the
> wrapped
> > > > > collection, but it can't as it doesn't know about it. This
> problem
> > > applies
> > > > > to all designs so far.
> > > >
> > > > Is this also a problem? It's general to all of the delegation
> > > > implementations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > private boolean heardChange = false;
> > > >
> > > > public void testChangeToBackingCollection()
> > > > {
> > > > Collection c = new ArrayList();
> > > > ObservableCollection oc =
> CollectionUtils.observableCollection(c);
> > > > oc.addListener(new CollectionListener()
> > > > {
> > > > public void changed(CollectionEvent e) { heardChange =
> true; }
> > > > });
> > > >
> > > > c.add("hello");
> > > >
> > > > assertTrue("heardChange == true", heardChange == true);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't think it's possible to make this test pass -- just a
> > > > shortcoming of the wrapper design. That's why I was looking
> into
> > > > aspect-based implementations.
> > > >
> > > > michael
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
