Thanks for your extensive reply.

On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 10:48:52PM +0100, Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 25.01.2008 21:57:46 Simon Pepping wrote:
> > Why does a user need to be able to write his own broadcaster, with his
> > own event producers, besides his own listeners? Why is it not enough
> > to let him write his own listeners?
> I guess you're referring to my choice to split the broadcaster into
> interface and default implementation. In the normal case, I don't expect
> anyone to implement another EventBroadcaster but maybe someone finds a
> reason to subclass DefaultEventBroadcaster, for example to do filtering.

Indeed, the interface and the name 'Default...' made me think so. Why
do you not call them IEventBroadcaster and EventBroadcaster?

> I want to leave that possibility open. Furthermore, the interface is
> better readable than the implementation. Normally, it should be enough
> to implement a listener. Basically, I somewhat designed this whole thing
> to be reused outside the FOP domain as nothing in there is really
> FOP-specific. The naming of FopEvent somehow bugs me in this regard but
> I haven't found a better name, yet, to distinguish the event object from
> java.util.EventObject. Suggestions welcome.

Why do you not just call it Event? The name is qualified by its

Regards, Simon

Simon Pepping
home page:

Reply via email to