Timeline for Is the Observer pattern adequate for this kind of scenario?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2014 at 9:25 | answer | added | Philipp | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 11, 2013 at 15:24 | comment | added | jzx | It would be nice if the absolute values were only updated when they were accessed, maybe keyed off of a frame counter. That way you wouldn't be processing the entire subtree every time its root moved, only the bits you care about for that frame. | |
| Sep 12, 2013 at 2:59 | comment | added | Michael Brewer-Davis |
Having your setter make a defensive copy seems reasonable; having your accessor return a defensive copy would prevent @node.position.x = 500, which would keep you from needing the Observable pattern, but would make assigning new positions more cumbersome.
|
|
| Jul 14, 2013 at 1:05 | answer | added | mortalapeman | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 14, 2013 at 0:41 | answer | added | Bob Nadler | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 13, 2013 at 22:50 | history | asked | Saturn | CC BY-SA 3.0 |