Not that it's really what you asked (I agree with the replies you've
received), but if you're using the idiom shown in some of the Google
presentations/samples/vids, instead of direct references to the EventBus
instance (which is a class and not an interface ... I don't know why), you
may have something like this:
MyEvent.register(...);
MyEvent.fire(new MyEvent(...));
That's pretty convenient, but suffers from the same problem mentioned in
the other replies.
I've gone to something like this:
I inject/construct with instances of a class like MyEventBroker, which
looks like:
public class MyEventBroker {
EventBus eventBus;
public MyEventBroker(EventBus eventBus) { ... }
public HandlerRegistration registerEventOneHandler(...) { ... }
public void fireEventOne(EventOne eventOne) { ... }
public HandlerRegistration registerEventTwoHandler(...) { ... }
public void fireEventTwo(EventTwo eventTwo) { ... }
...
}
I used to have a lot of events, but since moving to MVP, I have far fewer.
Nevertheless, I find it convenient, while YMMV.
Anyway, most of my classes don't need direct references to EventBus
instances, just the MyEventBroker instance. I never liked the static
methods I saw in the Google samples. Statics always seem to bite me if I
am not careful, and messing with my testing seems to be one of the first
places.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Web Toolkit" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/google-web-toolkit/-/KWXsPY461d0J.
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.
