From: "Chuck Daniels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > sc.add("");
> > Sends event OK - BUT eventCollection == oc.
> > This is a problem, as if the listener then uses the collection,
> > it will not
> > be synchronized. Big problem.
>
> I don't think this will actually be a problem. If calls to sc are
> synchronized, then anything that the listener does to the backing
collection
> (oc in this case) is still within the context of the synchronized call on
> sc. Therefore, access to the backing collection is indirectly
synchronized.
> Or am I missing something here?
Intruiging. Yes, you are probably correct, so long as the listener operates
in the same thread in a normal fashion. I was thinking of trying to spot if
the ObservedCollection was being decorated and inform it, but maybe thats
over zealous, and javadoc will do.
Stephen
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michael Heuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 11:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [collections] NotifyingCollections - capturing rich
> > non-uniform
> > data
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > The biggest problem with all this is that the collection returned by
> > > > getSource() on the event. If the observed collection is
> > wrapped (eg. by
> > a
> > > > SyncronizedCollection) then getSource() SHOULD return the wrapped
> > > > collection, but it can't as it doesn't know about it. This problem
> > applies
> > > > to all designs so far.
> > >
> > > Is this also a problem? It's general to all of the delegation
> > > implementations.
> > >
> > >
> > > private boolean heardChange = false;
> > >
> > > public void testChangeToBackingCollection()
> > > {
> > > Collection c = new ArrayList();
> > > ObservableCollection oc = CollectionUtils.observableCollection(c);
> > > oc.addListener(new CollectionListener()
> > > {
> > > public void changed(CollectionEvent e) { heardChange = true; }
> > > });
> > >
> > > c.add("hello");
> > >
> > > assertTrue("heardChange == true", heardChange == true);
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think it's possible to make this test pass -- just a
> > > shortcoming of the wrapper design. That's why I was looking into
> > > aspect-based implementations.
> > >
> > > michael
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
