Hi Greg, Yes I think that is correct and I believe this is how it's working now. I just bump into that. Maybe my scenario have also some reasonable meaning. I have List which has item renderer and inside that item renderer I'm having CheckBox.
I want to know in general which checkbox is selected, so do not go to much in the details. When you have default item renderer and click on it - You have selectedIndex = 1,2 etc. Controller [1] in that case listen for click and make assign to selectedIndex. When you click on my item renderer - click won't be received by controller, cause you will simply clicking into CheckBox instead of item renderer itself, so no selectedIndex, no Change event etc. I resolved it by dispatching "itemClick" once someone is clicking onto CheckBox - Controller receiving event and making selctedIndex additionally dispatching [1]. User receiving that Change event, but two times. By dispatching that event "itemClick" I'm probably not doing anything usual - that's why I didn't mention in the previous email that scenario. I have resolved that double dispatch by creating my own controller where CHANGE dispatch [1] is simply removed. Please do not think too much about my scenario and requirements - I'm asking whether it even needed when you have default item renderer. IMO I didn't have time too look into that myself, but maybe I will. I will take my controller (without change event) and simply assign to default List to see what is happen - Cause my List itself is also custom one. ;) [1] https://bit.ly/2GeQ5En Thanks, Piotr czw., 7 lut 2019 o 20:44 Greg Dove <[email protected]> napisał(a): > Hi Piotr, Carlos, > > I expect to have time next week to spend on this and other tasks that I > have been hoping to get to for Royale, although I expect to focus on > AMFBinaryData first. > > Piotr, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the general approach we got to > was that : > > -the model should dispatch individual 'selectionChanged', > 'dataProviderChanged', etc directly from the host component for binding > support, and > -user initiated changes/interaction should dispatch 'change' event, which > can occur alongside a subset of 'selectionChanged' events, for example. > > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 12:58 AM Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Ok I will check. > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 12:40 PM Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > > > could you check in Tour De Jewel if removing that sentence makes some > > > regression in examples? > > > (I mean example with Lists and other deviated like ComboBox that use > > List) > > > > > > If you don't see anything I could try as well in our app and see if > > there's > > > some possible use case don't covered in TDJ and in that case maybe we > can > > > see if that could be refactored some way > > > > > > thanks! > > > > > > Carlos > > > > > > > > > > > > El jue., 7 feb. 2019 a las 11:02, Piotr Zarzycki (< > > > [email protected]>) > > > escribió: > > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > > > I'm progressing with some application and discovered that we are > > > > dispatching CHANGE event from here [1] - I'm wondering whether we > > really > > > > need it. Model is being update in that operation - I believe it > should > > be > > > > enough. > > > > > > > > Just to make it clear there is no issue - I mean CHANGE event doesn't > > > fire > > > > two times etc. because of that. I didn't check whether it makes any > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > [1] https://bit.ly/2GeQ5En > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Piotr > > > > > > > > pon., 24 gru 2018 o 11:51 Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> > > > > napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > > > > > You have less events flying around the head. :) > > > > > > > > > > Piotr > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 11:32 AM Carlos Rovira < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Thanks Piotr and Greg, > > > > >> > > > > >> I'm catching up with all the thread. I'm testing and seems all is > > ok, > > > > >> Seems > > > > >> Jewel List, ComboBox, DropDownList are now much better and robust > :) > > > > >> Great work! Thanks for working on this! :) > > > > >> > > > > >> Carlos > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> El dom., 23 dic. 2018 a las 9:16, Piotr Zarzycki (< > > > > >> [email protected]>) > > > > >> escribió: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Great! More tests the better. I will switch to your branch as > well > > > > when > > > > >> you > > > > >> > make the changes. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Many Thanks for help with that. Let's see what's more comes on > the > > > > >> road. :) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Best, > > > > >> > Piotr > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 11:23 PM Greg Dove <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I already checked this against the app that we are working on, > > so > > > > feel > > > > >> > free > > > > >> > > to merge that in if it fixes the problem you were seeing, > Piotr. > > > > >> > > For the more general changes with dispatching from strand and > > > > avoiding > > > > >> > > IEventDispatcher-ness , I can come back to that and try to do > a > > > > >> refactor > > > > >> > > sweep through these changes as discussed with Alex, and the > > other > > > > >> > component > > > > >> > > sets in a couple of weeks. But I will do that in a refactor > > > branch. > > > > >> I'm > > > > >> > not > > > > >> > > using the other component sets at the moment, and although I > > know > > > > >> there > > > > >> > are > > > > >> > > example projects to check against, I think checking against a > > > > >> > 'real-world' > > > > >> > > app is also important. Maybe Harbs and any any others who > > perhaps > > > > may > > > > >> > have > > > > >> > > used Basic or Express etc in actual apps will be able to > verify > > > > things > > > > >> > for > > > > >> > > those component sets in the refactor branch at the time, if > they > > > > have > > > > >> > been > > > > >> > > using them. I will make a request for others to check things > > when > > > I > > > > do > > > > >> > > that. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 1:22 AM Piotr Zarzycki < > > > > >> > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > Greg, > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > I have fixed issues with navigation in my application code. > > I'm > > > ok > > > > >> with > > > > >> > > > changes in that branch. > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for all changes! > > > > >> > > > Piotr > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > sob., 22 gru 2018 o 10:18 Piotr Zarzycki < > > > > [email protected] > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Greg, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > In your app are you using navigation in that way? > > > > >> > > > > Maybe I need to call some prevent method somewhere. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > > Piotr > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2018, 9:57 AM Piotr Zarzycki < > > > > >> > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Greg, > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Good news. I was able to build framework using ant and > > > produce > > > > >> IDE > > > > >> > > > >> artifacts. Tested your changes and looks good. However I > > see > > > > >> other > > > > >> > > > issue. I > > > > >> > > > >> have following code [1]. When I click on link in > navigation > > > > (I'm > > > > >> > > > listening > > > > >> > > > >> on change event) - I'm trying to change view using > > > > >> > > > ApplicationMainContent - > > > > >> > > > >> it's navigates me to new website with new url instead > > > changing > > > > >> view. > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> I need to investigate why it is happen. Apart of that I > > > believe > > > > >> we > > > > >> > are > > > > >> > > > ok > > > > >> > > > >> with that branch. > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://paste.apache.org/UzJI > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, Piotr > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> pt., 21 gru 2018 o 09:29 Greg Dove <[email protected]> > > > > >> > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> Ok Piotr, I'm not sure what is happening there. It does > > seem > > > > >> > strange > > > > >> > > - > > > > >> > > > >>> shell.view.royale.Shell seems like a class and somehow > has > > > org > > > > >> > > > >>> <http://shell.view.royale.shell.org/ > > > > >> > > >.apache.royale.jewel.Application > > > > >> > > > >>> appended to it. > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> I don't think that is related to anything I did (and it > > > works > > > > >> fine > > > > >> > > > >>> against > > > > >> > > > >>> the 'real-world' app I tested against - with maven > build). > > > Can > > > > >> you > > > > >> > > > build > > > > >> > > > >>> Tour de Jewel ok? > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:04 PM Piotr Zarzycki < > > > > >> > > > >>> [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > >>> > Hi Greg, > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > Thanks for your changes. Unfortunately I'm not able so > > far > > > > >> > properly > > > > >> > > > >>> build > > > > >> > > > >>> > my real world app using Maven. I build Jewel module by > > > > Maven, > > > > >> so > > > > >> > I > > > > >> > > > have > > > > >> > > > >>> > setup my app to be buildable with Maven. Unfortunately > > I'm > > > > >> > getting > > > > >> > > > >>> weird > > > > >> > > > >>> > exception during running app. > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > SimpleCSSValuesImpl.js:102 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot > > read > > > > >> > property > > > > >> > > > >>> > 'string' of undefined > > > > >> > > > >>> > at > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > org.apache.royale.core.AllCSSValuesImpl.org.apache.royale.core.SimpleCSSValuesImpl.init > > > > >> > > > >>> > (SimpleCSSValuesImpl.js:102) > > > > >> > > > >>> > at > > > > >> > > > >>> > shell.view.royale.Shell.org > > > > >> > > > >>> > .apache.royale.jewel.Application.set__valuesImpl > > > > >> > > > >>> > (Application.js:311) > > > > >> > > > >>> > at shell.view.royale.Shell.org > > > > >> > .apache.royale.jewel.Application > > > > >> > > > [as > > > > >> > > > >>> > constructor] (Application.js:46) > > > > >> > > > >>> > at Function.childCtor.base (base.js:2515) > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > Above exception is not occurs when I'm building using > > > > >> Nightly. I > > > > >> > > > >>> probably > > > > >> > > > >>> > will have to build framework by ant and prepare IDE > > > > compatible > > > > >> > > > >>> environment > > > > >> > > > >>> > or will try to rebuild whole framework by Maven and > try > > > > again. > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > Thanks, Piotr > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > czw., 20 gru 2018 o 10:49 Piotr Zarzycki < > > > > >> > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Hi Greg, > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Great news, cause I was going to look into that > > > somewhere > > > > >> > between > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Christmas and New Year. I would be happy to test > your > > > > >> changes! > > > > >> > Do > > > > >> > > > not > > > > >> > > > >>> > > hesitate push it! > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Thank you so much! > > > > >> > > > >>> > > Piotr > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > > czw., 20 gru 2018 o 10:39 Greg Dove < > > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> Piotr, Alex, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> fyi I found some time to spend on this today, and > > > Piotr, > > > > I > > > > >> > > should > > > > >> > > > be > > > > >> > > > >>> > ready > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> to push the changes I made to your branch tomorrow > > > > morning > > > > >> my > > > > >> > > time > > > > >> > > > >>> > (local > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> time - GMT+13). > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> It seems to be fine so far with 'selectionChange' > for > > > > >> binding > > > > >> > > > based > > > > >> > > > >>> on > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> model changes and 'change' for class event meta. I > > have > > > > >> been > > > > >> > > been > > > > >> > > > >>> > testing > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> so far against Tour de Jewel, but I will test > against > > > our > > > > >> > > > real-world > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> project as well before I push to your branch Piotr. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> -Greg > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:45 AM Greg Dove < > > > > >> > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > Alex, I can't remember offhand, but I think we > used > > > > that > > > > >> > once > > > > >> > > in > > > > >> > > > >>> only > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> one > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > place, and I did it really quickly. I am sure > there > > > > will > > > > >> be > > > > >> > a > > > > >> > > > way > > > > >> > > > >>> to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> avoid > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > it. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > I think the bigger issue is the way I did the > > changes > > > > to > > > > >> the > > > > >> > > > >>> model to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > support dispatching change events for > programmatic > > > > >> changes, > > > > >> > > > which > > > > >> > > > >>> I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> think > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > Piotr was looking at. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > Maybe I can take a look at that later today, but > I > > > > can't > > > > >> be > > > > >> > > > >>> certain. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > The simplest fix might be to revert everything I > > did > > > > and > > > > >> add > > > > >> > > > >>> binding > > > > >> > > > >>> > for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > the selection changes (currently > > > 'selectedIndexChanged' > > > > >> and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > 'selectedItemChanged' which I know you say could > be > > > > >> > > > >>> > 'selectionChanged') > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> in > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > addition to 'change' (as discussed) and make sure > > the > > > > >> > > component > > > > >> > > > is > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > dispatching those from the model (if it does not > > > > already > > > > >> do > > > > >> > > so). > > > > >> > > > >>> If > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > 'selectionChanged' (or whatever it is) is already > > > > >> happening > > > > >> > > as a > > > > >> > > > >>> > result > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> of > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > 'change' in addition to setter triggered changes, > > > then > > > > it > > > > >> > > could > > > > >> > > > >>> be a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> simple > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > swap for the binding event only (as discussed > also) > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > But this last part was also applicable to the > > > wholesale > > > > >> > change > > > > >> > > > to > > > > >> > > > >>> all > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > component sets we were discussing, not just > Jewel. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 7:17 AM Alex Harui > > > > >> > > > >>> <[email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Greg, Carlos, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Can one of you put together a simple test case > > that > > > > >> > > > demonstrates > > > > >> > > > >>> your > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> need for this "OnStartup" bead? It doesn't need > > > > server > > > > >> > > access. > > > > >> > > > >>> You > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> can > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> probably inject a dataProvider on > > > applicationComplete > > > > or > > > > >> > have > > > > >> > > > the > > > > >> > > > >>> > user > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> push > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> a button if the issue is about deferred arrival > of > > > > >> server > > > > >> > > data. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> IMO, we have to be more concerned about getting > > the > > > > >> > patterns > > > > >> > > > >>> right > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> regressions, and the best way to avoid getting > > > > >> regressions > > > > >> > is > > > > >> > > > to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> provide a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> simple test case that demonstrates a problem in > > the > > > > >> > patterns. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Hopefully, "OnStartup" beads are not going to be > > > > >> required > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > > > >>> won't > > > > >> > > > >>> > be > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> part of the framework. The usability of the > > > framework > > > > >> will > > > > >> > > go > > > > >> > > > >>> down > > > > >> > > > >>> > if > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> folks have to keep adding more and more "OnThis" > > and > > > > >> > "OnThat" > > > > >> > > > >>> beads > > > > >> > > > >>> > to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> get > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> their app to work. The approachability of the > > > > >> framework in > > > > >> > > > >>> terms of > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> documentation and number of classes won't scale > > > either > > > > >> if > > > > >> > we > > > > >> > > > >>> don't > > > > >> > > > >>> > get > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> these patterns right. This doesn't mean that > you > > > > can't > > > > >> use > > > > >> > > an > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> "onStartup" > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> bead in your app in order to meet some deadline, > > and > > > > >> share > > > > >> > it > > > > >> > > > >>> with > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> others, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> but we have to be careful about what patterns we > > > > >> promote in > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > >>> SDK. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> My 2 cents, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> -Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> On 12/18/18, 12:17 AM, "Greg Dove" < > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Hi Piotr, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> I would be happy to work on it, and wish I > > > could, > > > > >> but > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > > > >>> problem > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> me at > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> the moment is that I can't make it a > priority, > > > > >> because > > > > >> > > for > > > > >> > > > >>> now at > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> least it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> is functioning as we need it, and there are > > > plenty > > > > >> of > > > > >> > > > things > > > > >> > > > >>> that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> are > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> not > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> (mostly unrelated to Jewel). While the > > > > >> implementation > > > > >> > as > > > > >> > > it > > > > >> > > > >>> > stands > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> might > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> not be 'right', it does function as we need > it > > > to > > > > >> for > > > > >> > > now. > > > > >> > > > I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> suspect > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> is what Carlos meant when he said he was > > > concerned > > > > >> > about > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> regressions. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> I have other stuff queued up to add in other > > > areas > > > > >> too, > > > > >> > > > like > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> AMFBinaryData > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> and AMFNetConnection but will need to do > more > > > work > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > > >>> generalize > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> it, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> as I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> have it these working in a way that is > almost > > > > >> complete, > > > > >> > > but > > > > >> > > > >>> > mostly > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> focused > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> on what is sufficient for what Carlos needs > > for > > > > now. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> I hope to get some free time in early > January > > to > > > > >> finish > > > > >> > > up > > > > >> > > > >>> these > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> things. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 11:53 AM Piotr > > Zarzycki > > > < > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > Hi Guys, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > I definitely need to a way of resolve that > > > > >> problem. I > > > > >> > > > will > > > > >> > > > >>> > review > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> emails > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > tomorrow. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > However if you Greg would like to try > > > something > > > > go > > > > >> > for > > > > >> > > > it. > > > > >> > > > >>> > Would > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> be > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> great > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > if you could use my branch where changes > > which > > > > >> > removes > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> dispatching > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> "change" > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > event from model are in place. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > Thanks, Piotr > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > pon., 17 gru 2018 o 23:46 Alex Harui > > > > >> > > > >>> <[email protected] > > > > >> > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Hi Greg, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > I haven't looked at how pervasive this > > > change > > > > >> would > > > > >> > > be. > > > > >> > > > >>> I'm > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> mainly > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > saying > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > that Flex worked with these categories > of > > > > events > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > > I > > > > >> > > > >>> think > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Royale can > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > too > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > and would eliminate the need for > > > > >> > > > DispatchChangeOnStartup > > > > >> > > > >>> and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> things like > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > that. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > You could be right that the models only > > need > > > > to > > > > >> > > > dispatch > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> selectionChange > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > and not "change", as long as the > > controllers > > > > are > > > > >> > > > >>> guaranteed > > > > >> > > > >>> > to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> update the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > model in a way that fires > selectionChange. > > > I > > > > >> have > > > > >> > > this > > > > >> > > > >>> > feeling > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> that in > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Flex there were some backdoors for > > updating > > > > >> > > properties > > > > >> > > > >>> > without > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > dispatching > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > events and dispatching the event > "later", > > > but > > > > I > > > > >> > don't > > > > >> > > > >>> think > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> we've > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> had to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > write such code in Royale and maybe we > > won't > > > > >> have > > > > >> > to > > > > >> > > or > > > > >> > > > >>> can't > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> because the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > browser will update right away in many > > > cases. > > > > >> > There > > > > >> > > > were > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> somethings you > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > could do in Flash knowing that all > > rendering > > > > was > > > > >> > > > >>> deferred to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> frame > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > updates. In Royale, with separate > models, > > > the > > > > >> > > > controller > > > > >> > > > >>> > code > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> can't just > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > set the backing variable. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > So, if you want to give it a try having > > only > > > > >> > > > >>> selectionChange > > > > >> > > > >>> > as > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > bindable event, go for it. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > -Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > On 12/17/18, 12:35 PM, "Greg Dove" < > > > > >> > > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Thanks Alex. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > I only looked in Basic TextInput > > > because I > > > > >> was > > > > >> > > > >>> looking > > > > >> > > > >>> > for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> simpler > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > example of the general case being > > > > discussed. > > > > >> > That > > > > >> > > > >>> code > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> looks > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> like it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > might > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > need some work on the swf side in > any > > > > case. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > I was just looking for the > > > > >> 'programmaticChange' > > > > >> > > vs > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > 'userInitiatedChange' > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > differences. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Based on a quick look at the other > > Basic > > > > >> > classes, > > > > >> > > > the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> conclusions > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > appear > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > similar. They are bindable via > > 'change' > > > > >> only. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > And the models all dispatch both > > > > >> > > > >>> selectedIndexChanged and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > selectedItemChanged. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > So it seems like you are proposing > > broad > > > > >> > changes > > > > >> > > > for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> everything, if > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > they > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > are to also support binding changes > > for > > > > >> > > > programmatic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> changes? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > For me, the change in something (or > > > > nothing) > > > > >> > > being > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> 'selected' > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > logically > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > occurs as a result of either user > > change > > > > or > > > > >> > > > >>> programmatic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> change. On > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > basis would it be possible to have > the > > > > >> > > > >>> selectionChange as > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> sole > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Binding > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > event (which occurs from setter > > induced > > > > >> change > > > > >> > > and > > > > >> > > > >>> from > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> user > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> induced > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > change) and the 'change' event as > > > > >> > > user-interaction > > > > >> > > > >>> only > > > > >> > > > >>> > as > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> the class > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > level > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > event type (as it is now)? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > I have not thought about this as > much > > as > > > > you > > > > >> > > (Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> others) have, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > so > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > maybe that last suggestion does not > > make > > > > >> sense. > > > > >> > > > But I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> really > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> think > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > that for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > whatever does make sense it would be > > > great > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > > settle > > > > >> > > > >>> on > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> something and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > get > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > it consistent for all components > > asap. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:43 AM Alex > > > Harui > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> <[email protected] > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Hi Greg, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > You are correct that there is a > pain > > > > point > > > > >> > > around > > > > >> > > > >>> > binding > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> overhead > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > PAYG. I can't think of a PAYG way > > of > > > > >> adding > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > >>> > ability > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> add > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > more > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > binding events via beads that > > doesn't > > > > have > > > > >> > too > > > > >> > > > much > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> overhead for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > folks not > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > interested in those extra events. > > > > >> Actually, > > > > >> > > > there > > > > >> > > > >>> are > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> some > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> ways > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > that are > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > JS-only like replacing > > > > prototype-methods, > > > > >> > but I > > > > >> > > > >>> don't > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> think > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> we > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > should rely > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > on mutable class definitions. In > > > many > > > > >> cases > > > > >> > > we > > > > >> > > > >>> make > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> trade-offs > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Basic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > ends up being what we think almost > > all > > > > >> folks > > > > >> > > > "must > > > > >> > > > >>> > have". > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > When we first started out I was > > hoping > > > > to > > > > >> > > reduce > > > > >> > > > >>> > binding > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> overhead > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > which is > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > why some of the beads look like > they > > > do, > > > > >> but > > > > >> > > > these > > > > >> > > > >>> > days I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> think it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > is more > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > important to separate interactive > > > events > > > > >> from > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> binding/setup > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> events. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Folks > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > who don't use a particular binding > > > event > > > > >> can > > > > >> > > > always > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> replace > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > model and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > top-level component with a version > > > > without > > > > >> > > events > > > > >> > > > >>> they > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> are > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> not > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > interested > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > in, or in the JS output, run a > > > > >> post-process > > > > >> > to > > > > >> > > > >>> cull out > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> metadata. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > But > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > under the "almost all folks" > rule, I > > > > think > > > > >> > > > "almost > > > > >> > > > >>> all > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> folks" don't > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > want to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > run interaction handling code at > > setup > > > > >> time. > > > > >> > > > >>> > Especially > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> if > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > handling > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > code runs any sort of animation or > > > does > > > > >> any > > > > >> > > other > > > > >> > > > >>> heavy > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> processing. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > I could be wrong, but I'm pretty > > sure > > > > >> that if > > > > >> > > you > > > > >> > > > >>> just > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> take > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > <select> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > element, you can set its initial > > > > selection > > > > >> > > value > > > > >> > > > >>> > without > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > dispatching an > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > event called "change". Then when > a > > > user > > > > >> > > selects > > > > >> > > > an > > > > >> > > > >>> > item > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> you get a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > "change" > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > event. IMO, this is why "change" > > > should > > > > >> be > > > > >> > an > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> interactive > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> event > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > not a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > binding event. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > So these are the reasons I think > we > > > > should > > > > >> > > adjust > > > > >> > > > >>> the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> basic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> beads > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > separate interactive events from > > setup > > > > >> events > > > > >> > > and > > > > >> > > > >>> why > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> "change" is > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > an > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > interactive event. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Now, we could renew the effort to > > make > > > > >> Basic > > > > >> > > the > > > > >> > > > >>> truly > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> smallest > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > implementation and move some of > this > > > > >> logic to > > > > >> > > > >>> Express, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> but > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> I keep > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > seeing > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > code creep into Basic to handle > > > > situations > > > > >> > that > > > > >> > > > >>> almost > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> all > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> folks > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > need. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > TextInput, on the other hand, has > > been > > > > an > > > > >> > > > >>> exception of > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> sorts in > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Flex. The > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Flash/AIR runtime dispatches > > "change" > > > on > > > > >> > > certain > > > > >> > > > >>> kinds > > > > >> > > > >>> > of > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> changes. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > So > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > early implementations in Royale > > tried > > > to > > > > >> > mimic > > > > >> > > > that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> behavior for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > folks > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > coming from Flex. But maybe we > > should > > > > >> change > > > > >> > > > that > > > > >> > > > >>> and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> make > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Basic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > TextInput > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > more consistent with browser > > behavior. > > > > >> The > > > > >> > > > >>> emulation > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> components > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > can > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > mimic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > the old Flex behavior. So I think > > > using > > > > >> > > > TextInput > > > > >> > > > >>> as > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> precedent is > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > misleading. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Thoughts? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > -Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > On 12/17/18, 10:55 AM, "Greg > Dove" < > > > > >> > > > >>> > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Alex, I was giving this some > > more > > > > >> thought > > > > >> > > > >>> also. I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> understood > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > that you > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > meant > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > to add extra events for > binding > > > from > > > > >> your > > > > >> > > > >>> previous > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> comments. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > But isn't the established > > pattern > > > to > > > > >> add > > > > >> > a > > > > >> > > > >>> bead to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> listen for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > selectionChange and redispatch > > it > > > as > > > > >> > > change? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > At least that seems to be the > > case > > > > >> > > elsewhere > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > If I look at the code in Basic > > > > >> > TextInput... > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it dispatches 'textChange' and > > > > >> 'change' > > > > >> > but > > > > >> > > > is > > > > >> > > > >>> only > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> Bindable > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > via > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > 'change'. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > There is effort to keep them > > > > >> > > > distinct/separate. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > (OT: It looks like the swf > side > > > > needs > > > > >> > some > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> consistency > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> in the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > html > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > setter > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > same as the text setter.) > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > So TextInput appears to have 2 > > > > >> distinct > > > > >> > > > events > > > > >> > > > >>> but > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> only > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> be > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > Bindable > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > for one > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > ('change'). So I presume that > to > > > > make > > > > >> > that > > > > >> > > > >>> support > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> programmatic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > changes it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > would be by adding a bead to > > > listen > > > > to > > > > >> > the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> 'textChange' > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > redispatch > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > as > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > 'change' ? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > Adding extra Bindable events > > adds > > > > >> weight > > > > >> > > > >>> because it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> affects > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > binding > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > data, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > and creates more runtime > support > > > for > > > > >> the > > > > >> > > same > > > > >> > > > >>> > feature > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> in use > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > cases > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > that may > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > not need it. I don't see how > > that > > > > can > > > > >> be > > > > >> > > > >>> > 'PAYG-ised' > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> because > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > binding > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > support for different event > > types > > > is > > > > >> > either > > > > >> > > > >>> there > > > > >> > > > >>> > at > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> compile > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > time or > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it is > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > not in the component. So if > the > > > > above > > > > >> is > > > > >> > > true > > > > >> > > > >>> for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> TextInput (at > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > this > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > stage > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it's a guess/observation, I > did > > > not > > > > >> try > > > > >> > > this > > > > >> > > > >>> yet), > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> then > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> could > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > not be > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > similar for selection based > > > > >> components? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > To me 'change' seems like > > > something > > > > >> > generic > > > > >> > > > and > > > > >> > > > >>> > does > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> not sound > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > specific to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > being user-initiated change. > My > > > > >> > > understanding > > > > >> > > > >>> is > > > > >> > > > >>> > that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> it just > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > happens > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > to be > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > that way by default, unless > you > > > > >> configure > > > > >> > > it > > > > >> > > > to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> include > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > programmatic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > changes via bead. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > If it is like this for Basic > > > > >> TextInput, > > > > >> > why > > > > >> > > > >>> can it > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> not > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> be the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > same for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > other components ? ( > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 7:32 > AM > > > Alex > > > > >> > Harui > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > <[email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > I took a quick look at > > > > >> > > ArrayListSelection. > > > > >> > > > >>> It > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> could > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> use some > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > improvements, such as only > > > > >> dispatching > > > > >> > a > > > > >> > > > >>> single > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > selectionChange event > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > instead of both > > > > selectedIndexChange > > > > >> and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> selectedItemChange. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Some controller should > > dispatch > > > > the > > > > >> > > > "change" > > > > >> > > > >>> > event, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> not the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > model. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > I took a quick look at > > List.as, > > > (a > > > > >> top > > > > >> > > > level > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> component). It > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > should > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > have > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > bindable metadata that looks > > > like > > > > >> this: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > [Bindable("change")] > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> [Bindable("selectionChange")] > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > public function get > > > > >> > > > >>> selectedIndex():int > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Similar for selectedItem. > The > > > > >> [Event] > > > > >> > > > >>> metadata > > > > >> > > > >>> > for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> List is > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > correct, It > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > should only list interactive > > > > events > > > > >> > like > > > > >> > > > >>> "change" > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> and > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> not > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > bindable > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > events > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > like selectionChange. This > > > > usually > > > > >> > > > improves > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> performance by > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > not > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > having the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > UI react to setup. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Once all of those changes > are > > > > made, > > > > >> we > > > > >> > > > should > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> discuss > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> any > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > remaining > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > issues. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > My 2 cents, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > -Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > On 12/17/18, 10:14 AM, > "Piotr > > > > >> > Zarzycki" < > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > Basic ArrayListSelection > > > model > > > > >> > > doesn't > > > > >> > > > >>> > dispatch > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > event. I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > believe > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > we > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > don't have to do this or > > > > rather > > > > >> do > > > > >> > > this > > > > >> > > > >>> only > > > > >> > > > >>> > if > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> we really > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > need > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > it, for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > example if someone make > > > > >> programatic > > > > >> > > > >>> change of > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > selectedIndex. - > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > This is > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > general problem how to > do > > > > that ? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > If I change > selectedIndex > > - > > > my > > > > >> > model > > > > >> > > > >>> dispatch > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > selectedInexChanged - > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > where > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > should I catch it and > > > dispatch > > > > >> > > "change" > > > > >> > > > >>> > event ? > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> My though > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > are > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > nowhere, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > unless someone wanted to > > do > > > > that > > > > >> > and > > > > >> > > > >>> have a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> bead. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > pon., 17 gru 2018 o > 19:08 > > > Alex > > > > >> > Harui > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > <[email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Hi Piotr, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > I may not be > > understanding > > > > >> your > > > > >> > > > >>> problem. > > > > >> > > > >>> > Not > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> all > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > models > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > will > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > dispatch a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > change event, but it > is > > > hard > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > > >>> imagine a > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> selection > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > model that > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > doesn't. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > -Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > On 12/17/18, 9:36 AM, > > > "Piotr > > > > >> > > > Zarzycki" > > > > >> > > > >>> < > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > I will review your > > > email > > > > >> > again > > > > >> > > > and > > > > >> > > > >>> see > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> what > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> can I > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > do > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > this. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > However > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > this one > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > is a second > problem. > > > > First > > > > >> > one > > > > >> > > > was > > > > >> > > > >>> > about > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > programmatic > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > change > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > discover > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > - If > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > you are talking > > about > > > > >> that - > > > > >> > > Let > > > > >> > > > me > > > > >> > > > >>> > check > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> your > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > earlier > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > emails. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > Piotr > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > pon., 17 gru 2018 > o > > > > 18:30 > > > > >> > Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> Harui > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > <[email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > napisał(a): > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > FWIW, I would > much > > > > >> rather > > > > >> > see > > > > >> > > > >>> energy > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> spent on > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > trying to > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > implement the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > patterns I > > suggested > > > > >> > earlier, > > > > >> > > > >>> which > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> will > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > hopefully > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > eliminate > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > the > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > need for > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > DispatchChangeOnStartup. > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > My 2 cents, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > -Alex > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > On 12/17/18, > 4:34 > > > AM, > > > > >> > "Piotr > > > > >> > > > >>> > Zarzycki" > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> < > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > Carlos, > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >>> > >> >> > > > > > > > -- Piotr Zarzycki Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
