On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'd argue that it's more than a convention and that an event listener > that is making assumptions and isn't checking the events that it > receives is destined to fail eventually. Arguably event listeners > should be tested by artificially injecting "bad" events to make sure > that they can handle them. > > One common way that things can get screwed up is changes to listener > registration code up or down the class hierarchy. Listeners are > registered, and events are delivered, on an instance basis, so they're > affected by registrations done by supertypes and subtypes. >
Those are good points. I'll remember that for authoring and testing event listeners going forward. Thanks, Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
