I don't really understand you Stack proposal is the HandlerManager is already a map to hold different type of listeners and like Thomas explained above you can influence the source.
The Concurrent access exception I already solved as I had my own Listener Collection base that all listener collection extended. They control did and did already the necessary queueing like now implemented in the HandlerManager. Or just throw an exception when concurrent access toke place, or the maximum number of listeners exceeded, or a listener already existed, etc.... Many little things that make it very easy to find bugs... My actual Collection listener implementations where almost empty and just a subclass with some generic specification... that's it, nothing BIG like you mentioned. I understand that the GWT don't want to create a lock-in situation and hide the creation of the HandlerManager such that can easily change this behavior in the future... But is this really an advantage and the correct way ??.. Why not just let this open and still change this behavior ??... I/We have to make changes anyway.. In my case: Option 1: produce many code to code around the situation that my own HandlerManager can't be injected as explained in: http://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?id=3628&q=HandlerManager Option 2: My own HandlerManager can be injected which saved my the bunch of code from option 1. Either way: if the gwt team decides to change this HandlerManager behavior, I have to deal with these changes anyway and in option 2, this takes less time and result in less code modifications. So what's the difference?? The same kind of "coding around" I see in other gwt frameworks like gxt... (they have to change/changed a lot to support 1.6)... So please, help me understand why the gwt dev team make these things hidden for gwt developers??... As I don't see any advantage of hiding these kind of implementation details. I am talking about "implementation details" in general as there are more of these situations (can be found in this or the contributor forum, like primitive intercaces...) and it sometimes very frustrating when you want to implement complex functionality that is so simple in swt and swing and not in gwt as they "still" choose to hide these kind of details :(... (not because it's not possible).... My experience and advice: please just make GWT more open and extentable.. ... ? -- Ed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Web Toolkit" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
