Problem using it with AndroidAnnotations about otto HOT 16 CLOSED

This will come with 2.0 when class hierarchy walking is restored. This was intentionally removed for the 1.x versions.

from otto.

I appreciate the decision, and it's easy enough to work around with enough care.

That said, gIven how easy it is to accidentally subscribe to events in a class and then subclass it, I wonder if either of these would be useful:

• a warning could be logged (difficult, since you've kept dependencies minimal and there's no logging)
• a "strict" flag for the Bus, where an IllegalArgumentException might be thrown
  if you try to subscribe to events using a non-final class.

In my code base, this is effectively what I've tried to do to avoid accidentally losing events.

from otto.

So, quick experiment leads me to the fact that anonymous inner classes are non-final (I'm sure there's a good reason). Oh well.

from otto.

@JakeWharton I seem to have an error with unregistering Subscribers using 2.0 snapshot. It's the IllegalArugmentException "Missing Subscriber...". Do you have to handle subscription differently in 2.0?

from otto.

I wasn't even aware 2.0 compiled, to be honest.

from otto.

The clean android code project uses it because the change is necessary for
integration with AndroidAnnotations, isn't it?
On Feb 27, 2013 1:39 PM, "Jake Wharton" [email protected] wrote:

I wasn't even aware 2.0 compiled, to be honest.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14201821
.

from otto.

Yes, but it's a long way from actually being a shippable version of the library. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are problems with it. I wouldn't recommend using it until we move it to the master branch to dictate that it's relatively stable and pushing toward release.

from otto.

That's what I was afraid of. I thought I would give it a try to find out
though. Would love to have these libraries working together. I'm all for
readable, maintainable code.
On Feb 27, 2013 2:07 PM, "Jake Wharton" [email protected] wrote:

Yes, but it's a long way from actually being a shippable version of the
library. It doesn't surprise me at all that there are problems with it. I
wouldn't recommend using it until we move it to the master branch to
dictate that it's relatively stable and pushing toward release.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14203331
.

from otto.

Well I'm starting actual 2.0 development today or tomorrow so it should move forward quickly. As it exists now it's more of a proof-of-concept.

from otto.

Oh, awesome! Is there anything I can follow to see if I can contribute to
its progress. Annotation processing is a bit outside my usual domain. These
issues are for the whole repository, not just a branch, right?
On Feb 27, 2013 2:14 PM, "Jake Wharton" [email protected] wrote:

Well I'm starting actual 2.0 development today or tomorrow so it should
move forward quickly. As it exists now it's more of a proof-of-concept.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14203713
.

from otto.

All issues relevant to its development will be organized on the 2.0 milestone of the project.

from otto.

I need to rebase it first, though, since the branch is about 6 months out of date.

from otto.

Got it.
On Feb 27, 2013 2:21 PM, "Jake Wharton" [email protected] wrote:

I need to rebase it first, though, since the branch is about 6 months out
of date.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-14204069
.

from otto.

@JakeWharton what is the status of the 2.0 branch? Did you reject to continue development in that way?

from otto.

Nobody is working on it. We have no plans to release 2.0 at this time.
On May 28, 2014 12:24 PM, "Csaba Kozák" [email protected] wrote:

@JakeWharton https://github.com/JakeWharton what is the status of the
2.0 branch? Did you reject to continue development in that way?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/61#issuecomment-44452825
.

from otto.

#135 will restore hierarchy walking.

from otto.