🚀 go-pugleaf

Well yea, when its my code.  But this is a bean, and the end user may get
happy and start fiddling around with the innards of the object I pass back.
Its crazy I know, but so is using "private."  Its an ImageIcon, he could
easily replace the image itholds, or set its internal image to null.  My
bean would not like that.  Thats why im considering the copy.  ImageIcon
does not have a copy constructor though...


"John McGrath [TeamB]" <ng-b@JPMcGrath.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.15a34d4ad4cde13a98a2e5@forums.borland.com...
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 15:12:10 -0400, "dnoyeB" <lamont_gilbert @
> rigidsoftware.com> wrote:
>
> > HOwever, I am concerned about passing the old object reference
> > into this event to be handed around and molested/violated.  I
> > would prefer to pass a copy of the object, but is this proper?
>
> I do not think you have to create a copy, but there is no reason that
> it would not work.  Well behaved code should probably not be changing
> the objects passed to it in a property change notification, so I do not
> think it is really necessary in most cases.  Depending on how many such
> events are generated, it could become a performance issue if you copy
> the object.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> John McGrath [TeamB]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Before sending me e-mail, please read:
>     http://www.JPMcGrath.net/newsgroups/e-mail.html