Hi everybody
I'm studying E4X and I discover how it is powerfull. I agree with Ben: 
it is really objects.

just one more detail:

_/[EMAIL PROTECTED]"toto" means the element "subject" where the attribute 
"id" equals "toto"
/<subject id="toto"> ...</subject>

/while

subject.(@id=="toto") means the element "subject" whith the included 
element "id" equals "toto"
/<subject>... <id>toto</id> ...</subject>

regards
Hervé
_
Ben Stucki a écrit :

> Hey Pedro,
>
> Welcome to FlexCoders!
>
> I came into E4X with a background in XPath as well and think the 
> biggest hurdle in learning E4X was understanding the methodology 
> behind it.  XPath is intended as a query language for XML. In contrast 
> I think of E4X more like an object representation of XML. This means 
> it can treat results a little differently based on the form of the XML 
> , such as when you get results with only one subject node but not with 
> multiple subject nodes. I've found that while I work with XPath from 
> the top down, I get the best results from E4X when I check it from the 
> inside out. Here's how the original query works out.
>
>
> idHTTPService.lastResult.record .( [EMAIL PROTECTED]"c001")
>
> The inner most part is @id="c001". The main problem with this is that 
> it uses the assignment (=) operator and not evaluation (==). This 
> means that istead of looking for an id attribute value of "c001", it's 
> actually creating or overrideing the id attribute. So we'll change 
> that to ==.
>
>
> idHTTPService.lastResult.record .( [EMAIL PROTECTED]"c001")
>
> The next part to evaluate is [EMAIL PROTECTED]"c001". The problem here is 
> that while @id=="c001" is meant as a filter, it's not in parenthesis. 
> So we'll change that to subject.(@id=="c001") .
>
>
> The rest works already, so here's the end result.
>
>
> idHTTPService.lastResult.record .( subject.(@id=="c001"))
>
>
> It takes a little getting used to, but I've found that E4X can 
> normally handle what I need it to do.
>
> Ben Stucki
> --------------------------------------
> We're Hiring! Seeking a passionate developer to join our team building 
> Flex based products. Position is in the Washington D.C. 
> metro area. If interested contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From*: "Pedro Pastor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *Sent*: Friday, February 09, 2007 6:26 PM
> *To*: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject*: [flexcoders] New to the group
>
> Hello to all of you.
>
>  
>
> I have just entered this group. I am quite new to those technologies 
> (Flex 2 and ActionScript 3).
>
>  
>
> After reading some documentation I'm doing some practising and I have 
> some questions to this community.
>
>  
>
> 1)       E4X query language:
>
>  
>
> I'm used to work with XPath for dealing with XML structures. I've 
> tried to do some (not very complicated) queries using E4X BUT it seems 
> like E4X doesn't work the same way (and it is far from fulfilling the 
> XML queries needs). For example, given the following XML date:
>
>  
>
> <ROOT>
>
>             <record>
>
>                         <data>..... </data>
>
> <subject id="c001">AAAAAAAA</name>
>
> <subject id="c002">BBBBBBBBBB</name>
>
> <subject id="c003">CCCCCCC</name>
>
>             </record>
>
>  
>
> <record>
>
>                         <data>..... </data>
>
> <subject id="c001">AAAAAAAA</name>
>
> <subject id="c005">HHHHHHHHH</name>
>
>             </record>
>
>  
>
>             And so on...
>
>  
>
> </ROOT>
>
>  
>
> Using an <mx:HTTPService  id="idHTTPService"   ..   resultFormat="e4x">
>
>  
>
> And asking for:
>
>  
>
> idHTTPService.lastResult.record .( [EMAIL PROTECTED]"c001 
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>")
>
>  
>
> this query only provides the record elements that have ONLY ONE 
> <subject> child AND has an "@id == c001". I mean, the <record> tags 
> with more than one <subject> children always fail.
>
>  
>
> -        Is this the correct behaviour?
>
> -        How can I perform such type of query?
>
>  
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
>  
>
> Pedro
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.32/677 - Release Date: 
> 08/02/2007 21:04
>
>
>  



Reply via email to