Scott Colebourne wrote: > <snip> > > Matthew Hawthorne wrote: > > > I also disagree with moving the observable classes. The way I see it, > > the desire for a collection that is observable overrides a desire for a > > specific collection type. The observable classes represent a distinct > > functionality, and splitting them across the suggested packages seems > > confusing to me. Plus, it seems we would still need an observed or > > observable package - else, what package would ModificationEvent and > > ModificationHandler go in? > > > > The observable classes are used together, will change together, so why > > not package them together? The problem with this is that it doesn't > > follow your suggested standard structure - but I think it has a good > > reason not to. > If split into the packages, there would have to be an events package with > the common event code. Actually, the observed package is one of those > parts of [collections] like primitives that is more independent. > > Observable does seem to have the potential to be popular. (I've received > various communications about it.) One possibility might be to create a > new jakarta-commons project for it like primitives. Although that does > seem a little extreme, it might allow it to grow and include other JDK > integration classes for example. > > Stephen
I think I would support a move of the Observable classes to a separate project, but I feel that moves the release that much further away. In addition to the existing implementations, I would also like to see Observable maps, primitive collections, and Colt 2D and 3D matrices. The latter I was planning to implement in a separate repository after the observable classes in commons were released. michael --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
