http://wiki.apache.org/xmlgraphics-fop/ProcessingFeedback is from the design phase and lists the reasons: - type safety - check mechanism to detect missing translations - check mechanism to make sure all necessary parameters are really dealt with, especially when calling the same event from multiple places.
I concede that overall the whole thing might look complex, but the end result makes for quite clean code on the message production side. Adding a new event isn't a big deal at all: 1. Add a new method to the EventProducer interface 2. Run the "resourcegen" task to update the model and translations 3. Fill in the translation I believe the whole thing worked out quite nicely. Only recently did I have a chance to make use of the event subsystem on a project where I needed to detect certain layout problems. That was easily done and works nicely. I sometimes think this whole mechanism would even warrant it own Apache Commons subproject. Design discussions: http://markmail.org/thread/bkfrub4334pcmrjd HTH On 22.10.2009 21:12:38 Simon Pepping wrote: > Producing and sending an event is simple enough. But why should I go > through the dynamic proxy, with an EventProducer interface and event > model, instead of simply produce and send the event? This is the part > that makes producing and sending a new type of event difficult to > understand for me. > > Simon > > -- > Simon Pepping > home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu Jeremias Maerki