There are far fewer listeners running around in J2ME than there are in J2SE, and what listeners there are tend to be more "tightly bound" to objects (IMHO) than is the case in J2SE. Thus, having an object act as its own listener tends to make sense. Frankly, I've never coded a CommandListener as a separate object, or even as an anonymous object. As you say, it doesn't seem to make sense to create an extra object for this, and I think it just makes the code murkier. Whether The Powers That Be would consider that "good" or not, I do.
As far as constructor vs. startApp for setup, that seems to me to be largely a matter of choice. Personally, I tend to do my main object initialization in the constructor, but do more "application-like" stuff (i.e. figuring out what screen should be displayed first) in startApp. That's simply a personal preference, and I could just as easily argue for a different division of labor. In the long run, neither one should cause "a lot more resource activity" - you're probably going to have the same code in your app whether it's called from the constructor or from startApp, and both functions have to run before anything happens from the user's point of view anyway. About the only "good" argument I can give for how one might choose to separate is to note that startApp is actually called both when you're starting and also when you're resuming, so you might consider putting the kind of stuff in startApp that would be associated with both cases, and putting one-time-only stuff (needing to be done on start, but not resume) in the constructor. But that's just my $0.02. Kevin Hunter -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Russel Winder Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 11:48 AM To: EclipseME Users Subject: [Eclipseme-users] On programming style I hope this isn't considered too far off topic... In a Java SE context, Most people try to separate out data objects and listener objects often with anonymous classes and Mediator pattern. All the Java ME software I have seen to date seems to put all the listener activity in the same class, and object, as the application. I am guessing this is to minimize the number of classes and objects? Is this considered good Java ME style? Another thing I have noticed is two definite trends with respect to startApp and pauseApp. Some people try to maximize the amount of work done in the constructor of an application class and minimize the work done in the start and pause methods. Others seem to put as little as possible in the constructor and everything in the start and pause methods seemingly causing a lot more resource activity to start and stop an application. It is probably that I haven't read enough books on Java ME (they are in the mail), so far I have done all my Java ME stuff from the manuals, so I probably haven't picked up the idioms. Is one of these two approaches `The Right Way' ? (For resources that remain from creation to destruction, of course.) Thanks. -- Russel. ==================================================== Dr Russel Winder +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Eclipseme-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/eclipseme-users
