Develop Reference

Clean Architecture: How to reflect the data layer's changes in the UI

I'm trying to make a design based on the Uncle Bob's Clean Architecture in Android.
The problem:
I'd like to solve is how to make the changes generated in one repository to be reflected in other parts of the app, like other repositories or Views.
The example
I've designed a VERY simplified example for this example. Please notice that boundary interfaces has been removed to keep the diagrams small.
Imagine an app that shows a list of videos (with title, thumnail and like count), clicking a video you can see the detail (there you can like/dislike the video).
Additionally the app has an statistics system that counts the number of videos the user liked or disliked.
The main classes for this app could be:
For the Videos part/module:
For the Stats part/module:
The target
Now imagine you check your stats, then navigate the list of videos, open the detail of one, and click the like button.
After the like is sent to the server, there are several elements of the apps that should be aware of the change:
Of course the detail view, should be updated with the changes (this can be made through callbacks so no problem)
The list of videos should update the "likes" count for the given video
The StatsRepository may want to update/invalidate the caches after voting a new video
If the list of stats is visible (imagine a split screen) it should also show the updated stats (or at least receive the event for re-query the data)
The Question
What are the common patterns to solve this kind of communication?
Please make your answer as complete as you can, specifying where the events are generated, how they get propagated though the app, etc.
Note: Bounties will be given to complete answers

Publish / Subscribe
Typically, for n:m communication (n senders may send a message to m receivers, while all senders and receivers do not know each other) you'll use a publish/subscribe pattern.
There are lots of libraries implementing such a communication style, for Java there is for example an EventBus implementation in the Guava library.
For in-app communication these libraries are typically called EventBus or EventManager and send/receive events.
Domain Events
Suppose you now created an event VideoRatedEvent, which signals that a user has either liked or disliked a video.
These type of events are referred to as Domain Events. The event class is a simple POJO and might look like this:
class VideoRatedEvent {
/** The video that was rated */
public Video video;
/** The user that triggered this event */
public User user;
/** True if the user liked the video, false if the user disliked the video */
public boolean liked;
}
Dispatch events
Now each time your users like or dislike a video, you'll need to dispatch a VideoRatedEvent.
With Guava, you'll simply pass an instantiated event object to object to EventBus.post(myVideoRatedEvent).
Ideally the events are generated in your domain objects and are dispatched within the persisting transaction (see this blog post for details).
That means that as your domain model state is persisted, the events are dispatched.
Event Listeners
In your application, all components affected by an event can now listen to the domain events.
In your particular example, the VideoDetailView or StatsRepository might be event listeners for the VideoRatedEvent.
Of course, you will need to register those to the Guava EventBus with EventBus.register(Object).

This is my personal 5cents and maybe not closely enough related to your example of "The Clean Architecure".
I usually try to force a kind of MVC upon androids activities and fragments and use publish/subscribe for communication. As components I have model classes that handle business logic and the data state. They data changing methods are only to be called by the controller classes which usually is the activity class and also handles session state. I use fragments to manage different view parts of the application and views under those fragments (obviously). All fragments subscribe to one or more topics. I use my own simple DataDistributionService which handles different topics, takes messages from registered publishers and relays them to all subscribers. (partly influenced by the OMGs DDS but MUCH MUCH more primitive) A simple application would only have a single topic e.g. "Main".
Every part of view interaction (touches etc) is handled by its fragment first. The fragment can potentially change a few things without sending notifications. E.g. switching the subrange of rendered data elements if the rest of the app does not need to know/react. Otherwise the fragment publishes a ViewRequest(...) containing the necessary parameters to the DDS.
The DDS broadcasts that message and at some point reaches a controller. This can simply be the main activity or a specific controller instance. There should be only ONE controller so that the request is only handled once. The controller basically has a long list of request handling code. When a request arrives the controller calls to the business logic in the model. The controller also handles other view related things like arranging the view (tabs) or starting dialogs for user input (overwrite file?) and other things that the model is not supposed to know about but influences (Throw new NoOverWritePermissionException())
Once the model changes are done the controller decides if an update notification has to be send. (usually it does). That way the model classes do not need to listen or send messages and only take care of busines logic and consistent state. The update notification ist broadcasted and received by the fragments which then run "updateFromModel()".
Effects:
Commands are global. Any ViewRequest or other kind of request can be send from anywhere the DDS can be accessed. Fragments do not have to provide a listener class and no higher instance has to implement listeners for their instanced fragments. If a new fragment does not require new Requests it can be added without any change to controller classes.
Model classes do not need to know about the communication at all. It can be hard enough to keep consistent state and handle all the data management. No message handling or session state handling is necessary. However the model might not be proteced against malicous calls from the view. But that is a general problem and cannot really be prevented if the model has to give out references at some point. If your app is fine with a model that only passes copies/flat data its possible. But at some point the ArrayAdapter simply needs access to the bitmaps he is supposed to draw in the gridview. If you cannot afford copies, you always have the risk of "view makes a changing call to the model". Different battlefield...
Update calls might be too simple. If the update of a fragment is expensive (OpenGL fragment reloading textures...) you want to have more detailed update information. The controler COULD send a more detailed notification however it actually should not have to/be able to know what parts of the model exactly changed. Sending update notes from the model is ugly. Not only would the model have to implement messaging but it also gets very chaotic with mixed notifications. The controler can divide update notifications and others a bit by using topics. E.g. a specific topic for changes to your video resources. That way fragments can decide which topics they subscribe to. Other than that you want to have a model that can be queried for changed values. Timestamp etc. I have an app where the user draws shapes on canvas. They get rendered to bitmaps and are used as textures in an OpenGL view. I certainly don't want to reload textures everytime "updateFromModel()" is called in the GLViewFragment.
Dependency Rule:
Probably not respected all the time. If the controller handles a tab switch it can simply call "seletTab()" on a TabHost and therefore have a dependency to outer circles. You can turn it into a message but then it is still a logical dependency. If the controller part has to organize some elements of the view (show the image-editor-fragment-tab automatically after loading an image via the image-gallery-fragmen-tab) you cannot avoid dependencies completely. Maybe you can get it done by modelling viewstate and have your view parts organize themselves from viewstate.currentUseCase or smth like that. But if you need global control over the view of your app you will get problems with this dependency rule I'd say. What if you try to save some data and your model asks for overwrite permission? You need to create some kind of UI for that. Dependency again. You can send a message to the view and hope that a DialogFragment picks it up. If it exists in the extremely modular world described at your link.
Entities:
are the model classes in my approach. That is pretty close to the link you provided.
Use Cases:
I do not have those explicitly modelled for now. Atm I am working on editors for videogame assets. Drawing shapes in one fragment, applying shading values in another fragment, saving/loading in a galleryfragment, exporting to a texture atlas in another one ... stuff like that. I would add Use Cases as some kind of Request subset. Basically a Use Case as a set of rules which request in which order are allowed/required/expected/forbidden etc. I would build them like transactions so that a Use Case can keep progressing, can be finished, can be cancelled and maybe even rolled back. E.g. a Use Case would define the order of saving a fresh drawn image. Including posting a Dialog to ask for overwrite permission and roll back if permission is not give or time out is reached. But Use Cases are defined in many different ways. Some apps have a single Use Case for an hour of active user interaction, some apps have 50 Use Cases just to get money from an atm. ;)
Interface Adapters:
Here it gets a bit complicated. To me this seems to be extremely high level for android apps. It states "The Ring of Interface Adapters contains the whole MVC architecture of a GUI". I cannot really wrap my head around that. Maybe you are building far more complicated apps than I do.
Frameworks and Drivers:
Not sure what to think of this one. "The web is a detail, the database is a detail..." and the graphic contains "UI" in this Ring as well. Too much for my little head
Lets check the other "asserts"
Independent of Frameworks. The architecture does not depend on the existence of some library of feature laden software. This allows you to use such frameworks as tools, rather than having to cram your system into their limited constraints.
Hm yeah well, if you run your own architecture that is what you get.
Testable. The business rules can be tested without the UI, Database, Web Server, or any other external element.
As in my approach model classes neither know about controllers or views nor about the message passing. One can test state consistency with just those classes alone.
Independent of UI. The UI can change easily, without changing the rest of the system. A Web UI could be replaced with a console UI, for example, without changing the business rules.
Again a bit overkill for android is it not? Independence yes. In my approach you can add or remove fragments as long as they do not require explicit handling somewhere higher up. But replacing a Web UI with a console UI and have the system run like before is a wet dream of architecture freaks. Some UI elements are integral part of the provided service. Of course i can easily swap the canvas drawing fragment for a console drawing fragment, or the classic photo fragment for a 'take picture with console' fragment but that does not mean the application still works. Technically its fine in my approach. If you implement an ascii console video player you can render the videos there and no other part of the app will necessarily care. However it COULD be that the set of requests that the controller supports does not align well with the new console UI or that a Use Case is not designed for the order in which a video needs to be accessed via a console interface. The view is not always the unimportant presenting slave that many architecture gurus like to see it as.
Independent of Database. You can swap out Oracle or SQL Server, for Mongo, BigTable, CouchDB, or something else. Your business rules are not bound to the database.
Yeah, so? How is that directly related to your architecture? Use the right adapters and abstraction and you can have that in a hello world app.
Independent of any external agency. In fact your business rules simply don’t know anything at all about the outside world.
Same here. If you want modularized independent code then write it. Hard to say anything specific about that.

GWT: Granularity of Places and ActivityMappers

I'm finally starting to "get" GWT. At any time, a PlaceChangeEvent can be fired on the app's EventBus like so:
History.newItem("token-for-some-new-place");
This adds the event to the bus, whereby a registered ActivityManager scoops it up and consults its internal ActivityMapper to give it the Activity associated with the PlaceChangeEvent's Place.
The Activity (similar to a presenter or controller object from MVP/MVC) then obtains any data that is needed (via RPC calls to the server) and executes any business logic and configures the final view (typically a Composite of some sort) to display.
As long as we're talking about a super-simple GWT app that only has one display region on its host page, then like I said, I "get" it.
Where I am choking now is what happens when you have an app that contains multiple display regions (areas that can be updated asynchronously from one another).
So I ask:
How granular are ActivityMappers supposed to be? Is there just one app-wide AppActivityMapper that maps all Places to all Activityies, or should there be some sort of ActivityMapper hierarchy/decomposition, where you have multiple mappers? (And if your answer to this is something along the lines of "this depends on the needs of your application" then please explain what requirements/needs drive the appropriate level of granularity!)
If a Place represents a URL token in your app (for the sake of making the Place a bookmarkable state), then what happens when you have a more complex app that has multiple display regions (D1, D2, D3). How does one URL token (i.e. http://myapp.com/#token-for-some-new-place) map to D1, D2 and D3? Wouldn't that mean ActivityMapper#getActivity would have to be capable of returning a list of activities (List<Activity>) whose start(AcceptsOneWidget, EventBus) methods would all get callled?
Thanks for any help here - code examples always rock.

A Place represents, well, a place. It answers the existential questions of where did I come from?, where am I? and where am I going to?.
For a given place, the screen that's displayed to the user can be complex, and divided into a bunch of display regions. Each one is governed by an ActivityManager, which asks an ActivityMapper which Activity to use for a given place, making everything loosely coupled (activities don't (have to) know where they're being used, for which place, which other activities are running concurrently, etc.)
So, you won't have a mapper that'd return a list of activities, but a list of mappers each returning one activity.
See:
http://blog.ltgt.net/gwt-21-places/
http://blog.ltgt.net/gwt-21-places-part-ii/
http://blog.ltgt.net/gwt-21-activities/
http://blog.ltgt.net/gwt-21-activities-nesting-yagni/

Separate user interface from domain in java Swing

As a Java Swing newbie, I have some trouble separating the user interface logic from the domain logic.
I have a small (trivial?) Swing app with a JFrame that contains a JLabel, JTextField and a JButton. When pressing the JButton a JFileChooser dialog pops up. After selecting a file, the JTextField contains the absolute path to the file. Nothing spectaculair so far.
The next thing I want to accomplish is that this absolute path of the file is 'injected' into a file manager class that will handle the actual processing of the file when the selection is made and the JTextField is updated (each time a file is selected using the JButton).
Questions I have:
How do I let the file manager know when to start reading the file? (for example count the number of lines within that file)
How can I implement the domain layer in such a way that minimal information is shared within the UI layer? Should I add a filemanager instance to the UI?
Should I use the value of the JTextField as the reference towards the file manager, or should I use the JButton action to set the value into the file manager? What I mean by that is: use propertychangelistener of JTextField OR use actionlistener of JButton?
Should I use a filebean to store the absolute path of the file within the domain layer or just directly insert it to the file manager? The difference is: when I use a property change listener the value of the absolute file path can be updated when the UI input changes, but when I insert the value directly using a contructor or setter, I have to handle the change in the file manager instead of handle the change in the filebean.
How can I reference the filebean that is used in the UI within the file manager within the domain logic?
Is the domain logic the same as the business logic? I mean: file manager class should be in package whatever.b-logic and filebean class should be in package whatever.domain??
The application is divided into several packages:
whatever : main class
whatever.presentation : swing stuff
whatever.domain : data stuff
whatever.logic : application logic
I hope I am clear enough...
Thanks in advance for clearing things up.

Personally, when I approach these kind of problems I try and look at re-usability and responsibility (who's responsible for what) as primary requirements.
That is, I try and get my models set up in such away so that they don't care about how or where the data is coming from or going to, they simple provide the interface access to make it happen.
To connect all the elements to together, I rely on the model providing events back to the client, cause the model shouldn't care about who wants to know, just provide the required functionality. So, in order to provide feedback to the client, I'd rely on a series of listeners.
I would break the listeners down into specific jobs, such notification of the file reading would be it's own listener, changes to the model (adding/removing/updating) the file beans would be another. Other notifications would be require different listeners, this stops you from creating monster listeners for which implementations don't really want to know about.
For setting values in the model, I would err on the side of property setters/getters. This decouples your model from the implementation (what if you are using the model in an automated fashion??)
Internal data would be best managed by the model if possible. That is, if you change a property on a file bean that the model is managing, the model should be capable of monitoring the change and dealing with it. Having said that, you may want a dumb model at some time in the future, where you could batch update a series of file beans and then ask the model to update itself.
I, personally, would probably provide the means for the model to be updated externally while providing at least one implementation capable of providing self monitoring, this gives you flexibility to chose the right model for the right situation.
There is also the danger of memory leaks here. If you don't properly remove any listeners from the file bean when you no longer need them, you could end up preventing the bean from been garbage collected at a later time.
Where possible, work with interfaces. This provides an great deal of flexibility when trying to pull these models together.
For what you describe, I would allow the file bean to be the responsibility of the file manager, such that the file manager becomes a container of file beans.
Depending on how large your project is and how you might want to reuse the code in the future will greatly effect the layout of the code.
I usually put UI code in a UI package and sub packages, but that's just me. I tend to separate interface content from implementation content (usually physically in separate Jar files, but again, that's me). This means that I only need to include the interface library and what ever implementation I might be using, using a factory of some sort to actually instantiate the implementation if required (or directly as is required). Think JDBC driver for example.
You want to look towards sphere's of responsibility. From what you describe, I feel that the file bean falls in the file manager's sphere of responsibility so I would bind the two together.
That's just my point of view

Here are a few suggestions:
Use SwingWorker, illustrated here, to keep the GUI lively while listening for progress.
Use Action, illustrated here, to encapsulate functionality.
Use File, a convenient, cross-platform abstraction. Use it to compose new abstractions, rather than pulling out non-cross-platform pieces.
Addendum: See also A Swing Architecture Overview and the answer.

Why people use message/event buses in their code? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 4 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I think that you have heard of message/event buses, it's the single place when all events in the system flow. Similar architectures are found in computer's motherboards and LAN networks. It's a good approach for motherboards and networks as it reduces the number of wires, but is it good for software development? We don't have such restrictions as electronics does.
The simplest implementation of message bus/event bus can be like:
class EventBus {
void addListener(EventBusListener l}{...}
void fireEvent(Event e) {...}
}
Posting events is done with bus.fireEvent(event), receiving messages is enabled by bus.addListener(listener). Such architectures are sometimes used for software development, for example MVP4G implements similar message bus for GWT.
Active projects:
Google Guava EventBus
MBassador by Benjamin Diedrichsen
Mycila PubSub by Mathieu Carbou
mvp4g Event Bus
Simple Java Event Bus
Dormant/Dead projects:
Sun/Oracle JavaBeans InfoBus
https://eventbus.dev.java.net/ [Broken link]
It's just the popular Observer (Listener) pattern made 'globally' - each object in the system can listen to each message, and I think it's bad, it breaks the Encapsulation principle (each object knows about everything) and Single Responsibility principle (eg when some object needs to a new type of message, event bus often needs to be changed for example to add a new Listener class or a new method in the Listener class).
For these reasons I think, that for most software, Observer pattern is better than event bus. What do you think about event bus, does it make any good sense for typical applications?
EDIT: I'm not talking about 'big' enterprise solutions like ESB - they can be useful (what's more ESB offers much, much more than just an event bus). I'm asking about usefulness of using message bus in 'regular' Java code for object-to-object connection - some people do it, check the links above. Event bus is probably best solution for telephone-to-telephone communication or computer-to-computer communication because each telefone (or computer) in a network can typically talk to each other, and bus reduces the number of wires. But objects rarely talk to each other - how many collaborators one object can have - 3, 5?

I am considering using a In memory Event Bus for my regular java code and my rationale is as follows
Each object in the system can listen to each message, and I think it's
bad, it breaks the Encapsulation principle (each object knows about
everything)
I am not sure if this is really true, I class needs to register with the event bus to start with, similar to observer pattern, Once a class has registered with the Event Bus, only the methods which have the appropriate signature and annotation are notified.
and Single Responsibility principle (eg when some object needs to a
new type of message, event bus often needs to be changed for example
to add a new Listener class or a new method in the Listener class).
I totally disagree with
event bus often needs to be changed
The event bus is never changed
I agree with
add a new Listener class or a new method in the Listener class
How does this break SRP ?, I can have a BookEventListener which subscribes to all events pertaining to my Book Entity, and yes I can add methods to this class but still this class is cohesive ...
Why I plan to use it ? It helps me model the "when" of my domain ....
Usually we hear some thing like send a mail "when" book is purchased
we go write down
book.purchase();
sendEmail()
Then we are told add a audit log when a book is purchased , we go to the above snippet
book.purchase();
sendEmail();
**auditBook();**
Right there OCP violated
I Prefer
book.purchase();
EventBus.raiseEvent(bookPurchasedEvent);
Then keep adding handlers as needed Open for Extension Closed for Modification
Thanks

Some people like it because it is the embodiment of the Facade pattern or Mediator pattern. It centralizes cross-cutting activities like logging, alerting, monitoring, security, etc.
Some people don't like it because it is often a Singleton point of failure. Everyone has to know about it.

I use it heavily in JavaScript. There can be so many various widgets that all need to do some sort of action whenever something else happens -- there is no real hierarchy of ownership of objects. Instead of passing references of every object to every object, or just making every object global, when something significant happens inside a particular widget, I can just publish "/thisWidget/somethingHappened" -- instead of filling that widget with all kinds of code specific to the API of other widgets. The I have a single class that contains all the "wiring", or "plubming" as they like to call it in the Java Spring framework. This class contains references to all of my widgets, and has all of the code for what happens after each various event fires.
It is centralized, easy to access and maintain, and if one thing changes or I want a new process to occur on a specific event, I don't have to search through every single class/object/widget to try to find out where something is being handled. I can just go to my "operator" class -- the one that handles all the "wiring" when a particular event happens, and see every repercussion of that event. In this system, every individual widget is completely API agnostic of the other widgets. It simply publishes what has happened to it or what it is doing.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're really asking in your question. You give an example of a simple event bus which is actually just Observable with a different name, then you say;
For these reasons I think, that for
most software, Observer pattern is
better than event bus. What do you
think about event bus, does it make
any good sense for typical
applications?
..but given your example, they are the same. This makes me wonder if you have ever used something like a Enterprise Service Bus. At a base level an ESB logically does the same thing as the observer pattern, but commercial products add much, much more. Its like an event bus on steroids. They are complicated software products and offer;
Message pickup
Generate events by listening to various endpoints. The endpoint can be a listener (such as a HTTP server), a messaging system (such as JMS), a database or pretty much anything else you want.
Message routing
Take your event and send it to one/many endpoint. Routing can be pretty smart, the bus might route the message depending on the message type, the message contents or any other criteria. Routing can be intelligent and dynamic.
Message Transformation
Transforms your message into another format, this can be as simnple as from XML to JSON or from a row on a database table to a HTTP request. Transformation can occur within the data itself, for example swapping date formats.
Data Enrichment
Adds or modifies data in your message by calling services along the way. For example if a message has a postcode in it the bus might use a postcode lookup service to add in address data.
..and lots, lots more. When you start looking into the details you can really start to see why people use these things.

Because it can be an important step in the way to decouple the application modules to a service based architecture.
So in your case if you have not the intention to decouple the modules of your application into isolated services then the native implementation of the Observer pattern will make it a simpler solution.
But If you want to build lets say a micro-services architecture the event-bus will allow to get the benefits of this architecture style so you could for instance update and deploy just some part of your application without affect others, because they are just connected through the event-bus.
So the main question here is the desired level of application components decoupling.
Some references about it:
http://microservices.io/patterns/data/event-driven-architecture.html
http://tech.grammarly.com/blog/posts/Decoupling-A-Monolithic-Server-Application.html

A good analogy is that of a telephone exchange, where every handset can dial to every other handset. A compromised handset can tune into other conversations. Program control flows like wires(cyclomatic complexity anyone!) This is similar to the requirement of having a connection/physical medium between two end points. This is So for N handsets instead of having NC2 (Combinatorial logic) flows for every new handset we tend to get N flows.
A reduction in complexity implies easy to understand code. Lets start with the prominent points you have highlighted: 1. Global knowledge 2. Intrusive modifications.
Global Knowledge: Consider message event to be an envelop. From event handler/sender perspective there is no data being exposed, it is seeing an envelop (unless an derived class tries to do some inspection using 'instanceof' checks). In a good OOP design, this would never occur.
Intrusive modifications: Instead of having a event specific listener approach, one can use a global event handling approach. As such we have a global event type (on which data is piggy backed and down-casted). This is much like the PropertyBeanSupport model in Java. With a single event type we are required to have a single sender and listener types. This implies you need not modify the bus/listeners every time you see something new. The ugly down-casting can be soothened using Adapter pattern (Please don't start that another level of redirection quote!). Programmers can write assembly in any language. So need for commonsense and smartness can not be substituted. All I intend to state is it can be a effective tool.
The actual event receivers can use the listeners (composition/proxy) easily. In such a Java code base, listeners would look like stand alone inner class declarations (with unused warning being flagged in certain IDEs). This is akeen to two players on the beach playing a ball game, the players don't react until they see the ball.
'#duffymo' points out another interesting aspect: 'Single point of failure'. This would/can in theory effect any object residing in memory(RAM) and not specific to MessageHandlers.

As a practical example, our app sync's with a web service every x number of minutes, and if any new data is received, we need to update the GUI. Now, because the SyncAdapter runs on a background thread, you can't simply point to a textview and modify its properties, you have to bubble up an event. And the only way to make sure you catch that event is if you have a shared (static,singleton) object passing that event around for subscribers to handle.

Java equivalent of Cocoa NSNotification?

I am writing a Java application using SWT widgets. I would like to update the state of certain widgets upon a certain event happening (for example, updating the data model's state).
Is there something in Java similar to Cocoa's NSNotificationCenter, where I can register an object to listen for notification events and respond to them, as well as have other objects "fire off" a notification?

Ok, suppose that for example, you want parts of your program to be notified when your Loader starts a scan, and when it finishes a scan (don't worry about what a Loader is, or what a scan is, these are examples from some code I have lying around from my last job). You define an interface, call it "ScanListener", like
public interface ScanListener
{
public void scanStarted();
public void scanCompleted();
}
Now the Loader defines a method for your other code to register for callbacks, like
public void addScanListener(ScanListener listener)
{
listeners.add(listener);
}
The Loader, when it starts a scan, executes the following code
for (ScanListener listener : listeners)
{
listener.scanStarted();
}
and when it finishes, it does the same thing with listener.scanCompleted();
The code that needs to be notified of these events implements that interface (either themselves, or in an internal class), and calls "loader.addScanListener(this)". Its scanStarted() and scanCompleted() methods are called at the appropriate times. You can even do this with callbacks that take arguments and/or return results. It's all up to you.

What sort of notifications are you looking for? If all you want is for one object to be able to tell anybody else "hey, I've changed, update accordingly", the easiest way is to use the existing Observer interface and Observable class. Or write your own with an interface that defines what you want to get called on the listeners from the one that's changed.

There's no pre-existing per-process service that dispatches events in java that's equivalent to the default NSNotificationCenter. In java, the type of the event is specified by the event object being a particular type (which also means that the notification method depends on that type) rather than using a string. Prior to generics, writing a general event dispatcher and receiver that is also typesafe isn't really possible (witness the proliferation of *Event classes and *EventListener interfaces in the AWT and Spring libraries).
There are some facilities for event dispatch. As Paul mentioned, there's java.util.Observable, which as you point out, requires subclassing. There's also java.beans.PropertyChangeSupport, which could be useful depending on your situation.
You could also write one yourself. The source for PropertyChangeSupport is likely available in the openjdk, and you could look at the abandoned Apache Commons Event project. Depending on your needs, you may have to worry about stuff like threading, seralization, memory leaks (ensuring deregistration or using weak references), and concurrent modification (iterate over a copy of your list of listeners, as a listener may decide to unregister itself in response to a change).
Now that generics exist in Java, a generic event dispatch library would be possible; however, I haven't come across any. Anyone?

There's actually a facility built in to Java that does exactly what you want, but it's not something you may have considered, and, to be honest, it is likely a bit heavyweight for what you want.
That said, however, it does exist.
It's JMX.
You create MBeans, and then others can register for events from those MBeans. The MBean can then send of a Notification.
I personally wouldn't consider using it for this case (I'd just pound out my own), but the facility is there and it well defined and documented.

Not Java, but the IPython project has a notification center written in Python here that you could use as a template for a Java version.

In Java this would be a provider firing notifications to its listeners. But Java does not offer the loose coupling you get with Cocoa's NSNotification because in Java providers and subscribers must have references to each other. Compare for this chapter 18 in "Learn Objective-C for Java Developers".

There is an implementation of IOS NSNotificationCenter in Java.
You can find sources code in :
This Github project