I really thought i got it - but i was wrong... i isolated my problem and perhaps someone could elaborate what i need to change and why.
Here are the srcs: [FONT="Century Gothic"]Ich konnte den Fehler rekonstruieren auch bei einem anderen Modell feststellen. Ich glaube ich hab eine Blockade gerade. Vielleicht mag sich das nochmal jemand anschauen? http://www.box.net/shared/gmbrc5yc2k --- In [email protected], "Alex Harui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, you don't want to do either option. You want to implement > getChildren to return a separate array collection for each collection of > children. This is because the individual sets of children are tracked > an managed by the tree so you can't reuse one collection instance, and > you should not return different instances for the same set of children, > otherwise one part of the tree code will make changes that some other > part will not notice. Look at the default descriptor and see that it > caches the AC instances per node/children set > > ________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of florian.salihovic > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:27 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [flexcoders] ListCollectionView#removeAll wants to dispatch > undefined > > > > Currently i write a lil' component to display class hierachies. I wrote > my own > TreeDataDescriptor. SInce i work with my own class-, packages- and > interface-descriptor > classes to describe the structure, i encapsule some ArrayCollection. In > order to display the > structures in a tree, i need to melt them together in one > ArrayCollection. So far so good... > > Since i want not to create a new ArrayCollection everytime the > ITreeDataDescriptor#getChildren is called, i thought to create one > ArrayCollection and > remove all items when the function is called. I thought it would be ok > to create a new field > (typed: ArrayCollection) for the class. But actually the forces my > component to crash. > Here's the code: > <pre><code> > public function getChildren(node:Object, > model:Object=null):ICollectionView { > trace(this._className+"#getChildren"); > try { > if(node is PackageDescriptor) { > this._children.sort = null; > /*try { > this._children.removeAll(); > this._children.refresh(); > } catch (e:Error) { > trace("Error: "+e.message) > } catch (e1:StackOverflowError) { > trace("StackOverflowError: "+e1.message); > } catch (e2:CollectionViewError) { > trace("CollectionViewError: "+e2.message); > } catch (e3:ArgumentError) { > trace("ArgumentError: "+e2.message); > }*/ > trace("\tnode.className: "+PackageDescriptor(node).className); > this._children = new ArrayCollection(); > var packageDescriptor:PackageDescriptor = PackageDescriptor(node); > for (var i:uint = 0; i<packageDescriptor.packages.length; i++) { > this._children.addItem(PackageDescriptor(packageDescriptor.packages.getI > temAt(i))); > } > for (var j:uint = 0; j<packageDescriptor.classes.length; j++) { > this._children.addItem(ClassDescriptor(packageDescriptor.classes.getItem > At(j))); > } > for (var k:uint = 0; k<packageDescriptor.interfaces.length; k++) { > this._children.addItem(InterfaceDescriptor(packageDescriptor.interfaces. > getItemAt(k))); > } > /*for (var l:uint = 0; l<this._children.length; l++) { > trace("\t\t"+l+": "+this._children.getItemAt(l).name); > }*/ > return this._children; > } > } catch (e:Error) { > trace("Error: "+e.message) > } catch (e1:StackOverflowError) { > trace("StackOverflowError: "+e1.message); > } catch (e2:CollectionViewError) { > trace("CollectionViewError: "+e2.message); > } finally { > return _children; > } > }</code></pre> > So why is it at this point wrong to call removeAll to remove all > references from the > ArrayCollection instead of creating a new ArrayCollection all the time? > The code above > compiles. If i uncomment the first try/ctach statement, the application > crashes. >
