Jeff, did you ever move forward with this?
I'd also like to have complex information in the "data" property of a node. seems to me that it might make sense as an option for the out-of-the-box code to not try to turn "data" into children since "label" and "data" are sort of magic names. d On 6/6/05, Jeff Beeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My other thought for a simpler, quicker approach was to use the good old > variables of "data" and "label" for each node, and the "data" variable > would simply contain a number that references the id of what I'm looking > at. The full data for the node would be stored elsewhere. > > The big problem I have with that solution is that my data is now > disconnected and I'm creating unnecessary clutter in my app. Having not > looked into the TreeDataProvider too thoroughly yet, could you give me > an idea how difficult it might be if I simple modify it to do the > following: > > Any arrays inside a tree data provider are treated as nodes, unless the > array is called "data", in which case it is treated as the data for the > node. > > Sounds simple too me on paper... but I realize it could end up being a > major headache - thoughts before I begin? > > > /****************************************** > * Jeff Beeman > ******************************************/ > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of alex_harui > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 7:11 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Tree dataProviders & backingObject > > Ah yes, the ol' "convert arrays to children" problem. The > TreeDataProvider is guilty of trying to hard to figure out which > parts of a complex object are children. I can only think of two ways > to deal with this: > > 1) write your own implementation of TreeDataProvider that doesn't > munge your data. > > 2) convert your data into the TreeNodes by using addTreeNodeAt then > adding the arrays later. > > I'd go with #1, it'll be hard to get started but the best solution in > the end. > > > --- In [email protected], Jeff Beeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > It looks like I just need to look more into the TreeDataProvider > API. > > I'm not very familiar with it (as you can tell), and I guess the > > behavior I'm experiencing does make sense. It just gets difficult > when > > I'm trying to make an object that has multiple properties, including > > arrays, be the 'data' part of the tree node, as the arrays end up > > showing as children (which does make sense). > > > > I guess, my recommendation to MM would be to document this > component a > > bit better, as I really had no clue where to start with looking for > a > > solution :) > > > > Thanks, all! > > > > > > /****************************************** > > * Jeff Beeman > > ******************************************/ > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of alex_harui > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:29 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Tree dataProviders & backingObject > > > > The Tree needs a hierarchy of objects each of which implement > > TreeDataProvider. That way, at each level in the tree we can ask > the > > current node for its children and other data. > > > > Built-in Flash types like XMLNode don't support TreeDataProvider > and > > it is too hard to mix it in (and bad practice as well). Thus we > take > > each XMLNode and wrap it in a TreeDataProvider and put the original > > node in a backingObject. > > > > There is no API for limiting tree depth. I'd think twice before > > implementing it because it would seem to me that the tree should > > faithfully represent its data so, if the data has only two levels > > then fine, but if it has more you should show that too. > > > > However, if you really gotta do it, you have a couple of choices > > depending on what you want the UI to look like. You could override > > setIsOpen on the Tree and block opening of things that are too > deep, > > but the those nodes at level 2 with children will still look like > > folders. You could customize a TreeDataProvider to pretend that > > nodes of level 2 have no children. That's probably the best option. > > > > --- In [email protected], "Matt Chotin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Check out the TreeDataProvider API in the ASDoc. The > backingObject > > is > > > used by one implementation of that API (called TreeNode) which is > > used > > > when the object you are passing to the Tree does not implement > > > TreeDataProvider itself. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we provide an easy way to limit the depth of the > > tree. I > > > suppose you could simply implement the TreeDataProvider API > > yourself to > > > make sure that children that are too deep aren't displayed. > > > > > > > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > > Behalf Of Jeff Beeman > > > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 2:50 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: [flexcoders] Tree dataProviders & backingObject > > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any sort of documentation on the way the Tree component > > deals > > > with it's dataProvider? > > > > > > Using the "Object Inspector" from > > > http://www.coenraets.com/viewarticle.jsp?articleId=83 > I can see > that > > > binding my dataProvider for the tree to an object creates a > > subobject > > > called backingObject that actually holds the data. > > > > > > So, I've got 2 additional questions - Why does it do this? And, a > > > related question is, how do I limit how many nodes of an object > the > > tree > > > actually uses for it's display? (For example, I only want it to > go > > 2 > > > levels into a dataProvider) > > > > > > > > > /******************************************* > > > * Jeff Beeman > > > * Digital Media & Instructional Technologies > > > * Arizona State University > > > *******************************************/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > * To visit your group on the web, go to: > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ > > > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > subject=Unsubscribe> > > > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > To visit your group on the web, go to: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. -- ---------------------------------- David Aden Webworld Technologies Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/flexcoders/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
