Ted Patrick - Demos & MAX @ Adobe Systems
Note: This is the personal blog of Ted Patrick. The opinions and statements voiced here are my own.
In-App Messaging with Tubes
DIGG IT!
10
Comments
Published
Friday, August 07, 2009
at
9:43 PM
.
One issue that has always troubled me is that within class based apps communication between class instances isn't simple. I want a simple system, where you can send a single message to a named instance or broadcast a message to all listeners. Also within the message I want to send an object allowing data to be routed around the application. Today I wrote a class called Tubes that does just that. com.diverted.messaging.Tubes
Lets take a look:
//import the class
import com.diverted.messaging.Tubes;
//to start receiving messages, simply add a name and a method
Tubes.add( "root" , this.tube );
//send an object to all receivers
Tubes.send( { type:"paymentRecieved" , amount:34.52 } );
//send an object to particular instance
Tubes.sendTo( "accountant" , { type:"paymentRecieved" , amount:34.52 } );
//to stop receiving messages
Tubes.remove( "root" );
I like the simplicity of Tubes because once you import the class, you can message within the application easily. The method passed into Tubes.add is called with a single object argument so you can structure the object as needed.
Cheers,
Ted :)
10 Responses to “In-App Messaging with Tubes”
Post a CommentWhere to find me:
Ted on Twitter - @AdobeTed
Ted on Adobe Groups
Ted on LinkedIn
Ted on Facebook
Ted at Adobe
Latest
- The Future of the Flash Platform
- Back in Black - Returning to Platform Evangelism a...
- Flex - The Generative ActionScript Framework
- Development Unit by Unit
- Memory Performance in the Land of References
- Free Flex development Tools for out of work devs
- Design++
- Design an Application like a Movie
- My intellectual property and Why Adobe a great pla...
- Problem Solving
Lists
Links
Jobs
Flex JobsArchives
- May 2003
- June 2003
- July 2003
- August 2003
- September 2003
- October 2003
- November 2003
- December 2003
- January 2004
- February 2004
- March 2004
- April 2004
- May 2004
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
Nice, very nice. I like that a lot.
Nice work, Ted. At first, I was thinking PureMVC could solve your problem, but it falls short of addressing specific named instances.
Again, nice work :-)
Wouldn't it make sense to change listeners:Object = {}; into listeners:Dictionary = new Dictionary(true);? That way you could use the actual objects as keys and you wouldn't have to rely on strings for naming the objects. The add method could be simplified to only have one argument, the object you want to add as a listener. Or am I missing something?
isn't it bad OOP to allow anything to talk to anything using only string identifiers?
Jens, that is a great point. The issue surfaces when you want to send a message and do not have access to an instance. Take email, I do not have to have you present to send you a message by your email address. Strings are also handy because you can make paths easily via dot notation:
Tubes.add( "root.tube" , this.tube );
Tubes.add( "root.tube.click" , this.tubeClick );
DataTubes.add( "root.tube.loadData" , this.onLoadData );
DataTubes.loadData ( { url:'http://yahoo.com', name:'root.tube.loadData'}
I did explore Dictionary for perf reasons but in tests found it to be a non-issue.
Ted :)
Bad OOP? What is that?
The goal is to simply allow two separate classes to route objects to one another or route message to many objects via simple api.
I think bad OOP is passing references around so you can talk to other objects. The leads to loosing track of references and bloated GC in apps.
My 2 cents,
Ted :)
Hmmmm, I must not get it. Isn't this basic event model? Can't you do this with Cairngorm event dispatcher, an event and anyone that implements the interface?
It is about the simplest callback event model you can make with AS3. If one class wants to let another class know something happened, you just send a message. Also there are no framework dependencies as this can be used in AS3 or Flex without issue.
Ted :)
Great idea, Ted. Not suitable for every case, but definitely a very powerful technique.
IMHO stuff like this has a lot more value than a complex MVC framework.
Great class! But what's the difference between tubes and just broadcasting an event? (and having another class listen to that event?)