Steve Downey wrote:
> Only if you can explain why this version is NOT the same as the "evil",
> "destructive", <choose your own negative adjective> one that Microsoft
> implemented in J++.
Uhmm, you'll have to tell me what you mean by that. I am not familiar
with J++ variances with the Java spec.
We use JDK 1.3 dynamic proxies to put the implementation behind an
interface with only one method. You interact with that interface,
even though the underlying object/method combo does not have to have
the same name (although the rest of the signature has to be the same.
It also works with Static Methods without requiring a public
constructor!
> Or maybe people have forgotten that by now.
I've *never* been exposed to it.
> For the record, I thought they were a good idea when Anders first introduced
> them. They were a lot cleaner than the cruft introduced by AWT.
Exactly!
> I think there's likely some synergy between this and some of the proposals
> floating around for reflection utilities.
:)
We have two versions of a Delegate:
Delegate--An interface with one declared method that can return a value.
the implementation of the method can be a static method or an
object instance method as long as the parameters/return value/
exception clauses are compatible.
MultiDelegate--Similar to a Delegate except for the restriction that it
cannot return a value. It is used for event
notifications. One method call (like notifier.fire())
can encapsulate calls to a whole set of delegates.
The source code is in Excalibur Util CVS right now. We are shaking out
the bugs/fixing up the javadocs and will most likely be done either
today or tomorrow.
If you are interested, take a look.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
