I like the idea, but it has the potential for memory leaks (since the user would be responsible for detaching the source from the wrapper in order to unregister the listener).
On Apr 19, 2010, at 8:41 AM, Noel Grandin wrote: > > On 2010-04-19 13:57, Greg Brown wrote: >> >>> 2. The immutable collection classes (ImmutableList/Map/Set) expose their >>> own private List/Set/MapListeners, which makes them completely useless -- >>> never will those listeners report any modification. Instead, the methods >>> getListListeners(), getMapListeners(), getSetListeners() should delegate to >>> the wrapped List/Map/Set instance, so that the users of the immutable view >>> still get reported about modifications of the wrapped collection. >>> >> That would sort of defeat the purpose of the wrapper class. When using >> immutable collections, the caller should not still be modifying the >> underlying collection. The caller certainly should not be under the >> expectation that the immutable collection will fire any events (especially >> from a different collection). >> >> > > Might be an interesting idea to make the immutable classes add a > listener to their wrapped object and whinge loudly if someone does > modify the underlying class. > > Regards, > Noel "fail early, fail loudly" Grandin >
