On 14 Feb 2006, at 12:52, Patrick Meade wrote: > Ian Clarke wrote: >>>> Umm, they have callbacks... >>> >>> So you're basically reinventing JavaBeans? >> >> We haven't reinvented anything, callbacks are a well known design >> pattern that also happen to be used by JavaBeans. JavaBeans >> would not >> be well suited to solving the problem we are discussing here. > > You're inventing a whole forest of classes, which are basically > structs > in a method shell, plus callbacks. Maybe this is one of those "each > generation believes they invented sex" things, but I smell JavaBeans.
You smell a small aspect of what JavaBeans are, there is a lot more to JavaBeans than get/put wrappers around fields with support for callbacks. Do you actually have a specific proposal that is better than our current approach (now that we have explained why java.util.Map doesn't meet our needs)? If so, we would like to hear it. If not, please don't waste our time with nitpicking. > >> What isn't in question is that your proposal that we use >> java.util.Map >> would not provide the functionality we need. > > And exactly what functionality do you need? As Matthew has already said, we need callbacks. java.util.Map doesn't have callbacks, therefore it does not meet our needs. Ian.
