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 package. Regards, Simon -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu
