On May 8, 4:57 pm, Alan Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ville M. Vainio wrote:
> > in case of stocks, you are probably monitoring several
> > stock objects, so the stock should probably pass itself to
> > the observer
>
> OK. This is related to my question #2 (in a separate
>
> thread), where I
Ville M. Vainio wrote:
in case of stocks, you are probably monitoring several
stock objects, so the stock should probably pass itself to
the observer
OK. This is related to my question #2 (in a separate
thread), where I'd also appreciate your comments.
analogous to a typical U
Alan Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> the following: "OK, here's the pattern, now your listener
> wants to know the event source, do not ask something new the
> subject to respond to that need. That is unnecessary
> coupling. Instead, just rewrite your listener to maintain
> a reference to th
Alan Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Is anything lost by not maintaining this reference (other
than error checking ...)? If I feel the observer needs
access to the subject, what is wrong with just having the
subject pass itself as part of the notification?
Ville M. Vainio wrot
Alan Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is anything lost by not maintaining this reference (other
>
> than error checking ...)? If I feel the observer needs
>
> access to the subject, what is wrong with just having the
>
> subject pass itself as part of the notification?
It reduces the number
