> > This is not true as most Java developers know that Swing is pretty old. > BTW, getting back to the original Phil's statement, apart from the fact > that you can have properties in the language with an annotation processor, > > I'd like to know what does he mean with "no events". One of the problems > of Swing is perhaps that there are too many (kinds of) events.
Que Joe! Joe? Ah right... This has been discussed before. An event in Java, is interface bound and can be done in so many ways. There are the legacy java.util.Observable, the legacy java.awt.AWTEvent stuff, but most just roll their own callbacks modeled around the singlecast or multicast observer pattern. Then there are all the various data-binding attempts, where JSR-295 comes to mind which I believe you forked as well. However, it really does not have to be so complicated. First of all, events elsewhere are build into the languages, enabling wiring up code (and tools) to take advantage of this knowledge. They also typically facilitate decoupling observer and observee, so that it becomes a matter of compatible signatures rather than shared types, similar to the advantage lambda's offers over anonymous inner classes. I don't want an annotation processor; I want the generic abstractions I use everyday to be baked into the language as first class constructs. Any handyman will claim that having good tools is half the job. The language is a programmers primary tool, so this should apply to software construction as well as house construction. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/p3ty-4f_o-UJ. 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/javaposse?hl=en.
