Yes. Basically we need unique child collections ________________________________
From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of florian.salihovic Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: ListCollectionView#removeAll wants to dispatch undefined Thanx for the reply! So would it be alright from the perspective of modelling the application, that i create a field children in each class, that hold references to all of its childs that i want to display? I thought that the treedatadesciptor would be responsible melting the children to display together. But the classes themselves are responsible for providing an access to the childs to be displayed? Sorry if my english ain't that good. I'm from Germany and i may need to refresh grammar and vocab ;) Best regards! --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "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:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> ] On > Behalf Of florian.salihovic > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 4:27 PM > To: [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> > 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. >
