Issue #3544: cleaned API methods related to MessageDispatcher & Renamed to ViolationDispatcher

[MANISH-K-07]

Part of #3544

Renamed MessageDispatcher --> ViolationDispatcher
Cleaned up all related methods.

[rdiachenko]

Considering this interface seats in the api package, should we go via deprecation process first, so we introduce a new interface but still keep the old one marked as deprecated? Otherwise, this PR may contain breaking changes. @romani what are your thoughts on this?

[romani]

Yes, we need to think on deprecation first. To let all plugins to migrate first, and if no known tools left, do deletion.
Is it possible?

[romani]

Items

[romani]

This by fact, new class.
This good opportunity to make it with better design.

Major concerns on void fireErrors(String fileName, SortedSet<Violation> errors);
Name of method is not good. Should be fireViolations or similar.

@rdiachenko , what would you recommend?
We can change all.

[MANISH-K-07]

@rdiachenko , ping please

[romani]

public interface ViolationDispatcher{
  void fireFileStarted(String fileName);
  void fireFileFinished(String fileName);
  void fireErrors(String fileName, SortedSet<Violation> errors);
}

Name of class and method becomes weird. Before update it was also not good, but it was too abstract it was less a concern, MessageDispatcher.

Problem is that we mixing fireFileXxxx with fireViolation and call it ViolationDispatrer, that is good name if only fireViolation be in interface.

May be we should just rename method in this interface to fireViolation and name of class EventDispatcher. Do we have any EventXxxx in our code base?

[romani]

https://github.com/checkstyle/checkstyle/blob/master/src/main/java/com/puppycrawl/tools/checkstyle/api/AuditEvent.java

We can not use Event word.

[MANISH-K-07]

We can not use Event word.

@romani , this PR is already outdated by 2 weeks. So, how do you suggest we finish this?

[romani]

@rdiachenko , is there any suggestion on api naming and structure ?
@nrmancuso , @rnveach , please share your opinion.

[rnveach]

I think we first need confirmation we are breaking compatibility with this issue and PR. We are renaming an interface that sits in the API class. I am also not seeing any deprecation in this PR as issue states.

If we are breaking compatibility, then issues needs label.

[romani]

we put labels after a fix, if we agree on fix, label is just reflection.
I am ok to break compatibility if we got better api that is easier to understand. For now I do not see that we improving.

[nrmancuso]

Maybe we should consider https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/docs/api/java.desktop/java/beans/PropertyChangeListener.html?