Ok. Thanks. Makes sense.
John
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Harui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> itemUpdated implies you changed properties of some item. setItemAt
> implies you replaced that instance with another instance. Things like
> selection will be abandoned.
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of syndicate_ai
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:51 PM
> To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Differences between itemUpdated and setItemAt
> for ArrayCollections
>
>
>
> --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>
> , "j_lentzz" <jelentz@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have a general question about when to use the two methods
> > itemUpdated and setItemAt on ArrayCollections.
> >
> > if you use obj = getItemAt(someIndex) and then change some properties
> > in the obj, what difference is there between using
> > setItemAt(obj,someIndex) or using itemUpdated(obj)? Is there a
> > particular reason to choose one over the other?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John
> >
>
> you generally use setItemAt if you need to completly replace the
> object in that part of the arraycollection. For instance, we have a
> backend delegate class that instantiates new objects all the time,
> each being different but needs to replace the item that already exists
> in the collection (each object being replaced is progressivly more
> lightweight) so SetItemAt is necessary for us, its more costly because
> the view has to completly rerender for that item. getItemAt would be
> better if you are just changing a few attributes on the object,
> because a view only needs to change if certain attributes are
> different from before.
>
> Thants what i think anyway
>
