Re: KVO and the observeValueForKeyPath bottleneck
Re: KVO and the observeValueForKeyPath bottleneck
- Subject: Re: KVO and the observeValueForKeyPath bottleneck
- From: Matt Neuburg <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 11:31:49 -0700
- Thread-topic: KVO and the observeValueForKeyPath bottleneck
On or about 7/17/06 11:24 AM, thus spake "Chris Kane" <email@hidden>:
> Simply calling super would be problematic, because NSObject doesn't
> implement it (well, it throws).
True. But that is what the example does here:
<http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/KeyValueObserving
/Concepts/KVOBasics.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/20002252-179866>
(Interestingly, the comment in that example is completely different from the
comment in the copy on my machine.) The code shown in the example will break
if super is NSObject. So perhaps I should file a bug on the docs.
>> The thing I'm really wondering is: Why was KVO implemented in this oddly
>> bottleneck-based way? There is terrific prior art, in the form of ordinary
>> notifications and the notification center (broadcaster-type architecture); is
>> there some technical reason why KVO doesn't use that?
>
> I'm going to have to leave you hanging on these...
Ooooh, I think I like the sound of that; maybe I won't need to file a bug
after all! :) m.
--
matt neuburg, phd = email@hidden, http://www.tidbits.com/matt/
pantes anthropoi tou eidenai oregontai phusei
AppleScript: the Definitive Guide - Second Edition!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596102119
Take Control of Word 2004, Tiger, and more -
http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/tiger-customizing.html
Subscribe to TidBITS! It's free and smart. http://www.tidbits.com/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden