On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:08 AM, James Carman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Matt Benson <gudnabr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I like the compiler-checked aspect of your code, James, considering it >> scratches an itch reminiscent of my current work in [proxy]. I'm happy for >> your code to survive this POE. >> > > I think it reads very well, too. The fire() method used to be named > getProxy(), but I like fire() much better because it makes it read > like a sentence. I do believe I'm going to make the > EventUtils.addEventListener() method private. It really doesn't add > much value to outside folks. Its primary purpose is an implementation > method for the other bindEventsToMethod() method. WDYT? >
Well, I can see *some* value in having it, due to the fact that there are no well-known interfaces for *listenable* items. We could provide a generic interface as a wannabe defacto standard, but it would fall down as soon as somebody wanted to support multiple listener types on a single object. I've been doing a lot of event-listening code at $work recently (over the past year) and this has been a big PITA. I can't see a way generic enough for [lang] to handle this problem, so I might vote for #addEventListener() to remain. However, you might add an analogous remove() in that case. Finally, a bit of code to take away from the other event-stuff is the null-checking of the added/removed listeners. ;) -Matt > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
