Re: [ALACPP] Thoughts on last night's code sample

["Jon Stewart" <stew1@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> For this purpose, the name would perhaps have better been something like
> EventHandlerChainSocket (too long). They aren't really events - they're place
> s
> to hold the set of registered observers of events. However, they aren't reall
> y
> event handlers either - those would be the actual functions called (eg,
> putOutFire). We never did find a good name that made us happy, so we just
> called them EventHandlers.


This is why I think Chris prefers EventDispatcher. To the code triggering 
the event, it makes sense as a good name (tell the dispatcher to send the 
message) and to the registration code, it makes a good name (register the 
handler with the dispatcher). 


> Basically, EventHandlers served to provide a place to register delegates.
> Incomming net messages were deserialized, and then transformed into events
> (calls to the corresponding EventHandler), via lookup on the MessageID. The
> EventHandler itself was completely unaware that it was involved in network
> traffic (as were the delegate functions that it called): it just knew that an
> event had occured, and the args were on the stack. Among other things, this
> made it really easy to test: only the outermost tests had to involve a networ
> k
> at all.


Yes. Those who came on Thursday night heard me extoll the virtues of 
"decoupled notification" for testing purposes. :-) I think it's almost 
important enough to warrant a paper or something, but I could be wrong. 



Jon
-- 
Jon Stewart
stew1@xxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
alacpp mailing list
alacpp@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/alacpp