On May 31, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Cédric Beust ♔ wrote: > Ah right, I remember that. > > While I agree it's an improvement over listeners, I still think that this > kind of binding 1) couples your view and your model too strongly and 2) > creates n*m connections, which is a lot of overhead. > > For example, if you want to bind two text fields to two different variables > (say a status bar and a window title), you now have four connections to > maintain and walk through every time something changes. And obviously, your > tool had better support refactoring (especially renaming) or deciding to > rename varName to something else might lead to events becoming suddenly lost. > > I still think that the local software bus approach is much more powerful and > solves these two problems: 1) No more coupling between view and model, the > only hub is the message bus, and 2) it creates n+m connections instead of n*m. +1, listeners grab what they need and ignore the rest
> > The downside is that both publishers and subscribers need to have a handle on > that bus, but we know how to solve this pretty effectively today, both from a > code organization and architectural standpoint. name space management is the big problem. > > I discussed this in longer details in this blog post some time ago. My code > has become dramatically simpler whenever I replaced listeners with a local > bus. yup! Kirk -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
