On Jan 18, 2007, at 9:51 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
On Jan 18, 2007, at 7:18 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On Jan 18, 2007, at 5:47 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
I'm not a big fan of switch statements and I think that the code
looks messy, jmho. Also, there's a lot more going on than just
checks for illegal states. There's access to methods that needs
to be controlled. Using this new paradigm, check statements and
impls have sprouted all over the place. Using the "old" method,
the logic/decisions are in a single place.
Easy come easy go I guess :) I will mourn the loss of the Alan
code I love and learn to love the new Alan code :)
Couple design notes though. Use named inner classes (or top level
classes) instead of anonymous inner classes as the Foo$3.class is
hard to read in a stack trace.
Agreed. Anonymous inner classes should be restricted to teeny ones
that are a few lines long, e.g. listeners.
Listeners are dangerous as anonymous inner classes since they hold an
implicit reference to the outer class. This can lead to memory
leaks, so use carefully.
-dain
