Re: Does anybody want to replace base handler ?

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 05:06:18PM +0200, Martin Matula wrote:
> > The advantage of making these checks outside of the listener is, that
> > a) the listeners are called two times and b) all listeners which apply
> > are put into a queue. Hence even if I would put all "if"'s also into
> > the listener (what is not necessary) the additional external check
> > probably would be more efficient in most case.
> 
> For the interactive case that you are focused on I guess that preChange 
> events are not needed and thus the listeners are called only once. In 
> this case checks inside of listeners are running on a background thread 
> however checks inside of MDR are blocking other threads from working 
> with it (it is still inside the transaction).

OK. I will review my code accordingly before I prepare the patch.

> > 
> > It heavily depends on the use cases. In complicated interactive
> > environments you will have *all* kinds of bitmasks you only can
> > imagine.
> 
> I don't see why this would be a good thing to do.

Each view will register a listener which listens on the types of
events which may change those parts of the model the view depends on.

> I need to see the implementation. I don't see why they are needed by 
> EventNotifier. The reason I don't like them is their name. It is not 
> obvious from the names what the difference is between EVENTMASK_BY and 
> EVENTMASK_ON events is. I would even think that their meaning is 
> opposite. I.e. "BY" events are fired *by* the object (object is the 
> source), "ON" events are fired *on* object (object is either the source 
> or source's package/etc.). It is confusing.

I have no problems neither with name changes nor with removing the
constants I called EVENTMASK_BY. Decide to your pleasure after code review.


-- 
Holger Krug
[email protected]