"...it must enter this method as an XMLNode.." Can you explain why that is so?. The XML API is much more powerful than the obsolete classes. True it lacks a few convenience properties/ methods like "nextSibling", but these are easily added. I just want you to be sure of your choice, because I think you are hitching your wagon to a near dead horse.
Also, you DO have a root node in your xml, you just chose to not have one in your XMLListCollection. But if you are happy, I'm happy. Tracy ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of hmmmbeer3 Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:49 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Tree and ITreeDataDescriptor --- In [email protected] <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "Tracy Spratt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, you don't, I see you are converting it to e4x XML. First, skip that > step. Set resultFormat="e4x" on the WebService tag. > > > > Change your test snippet: > > treeData:XML = > <Rows> > > ... > > </Rows> > > > > Then: > > //////skip this var treeData:XML = new XML(ROWS.toString()); > //////skip this myData = new XMLListCollection(treeData.Row); > > > this.dataProvider= treeData; //is this code in a component that extends > mx:Tree? So "this" is a tree? > > > > This will produce a tree with a "Rows" root node. Set showRoot="false" > on the tree to prevent that. > > > > Now: > > var xlChildren:XMLList = treeData.children(); > > > > myTree.expandItem(xlChildren[0]); //will expand the first child > > > > See the example I posted earlier in this thread for an example how to > search for an id and expand that node. Bacically it is: > > var xmlSelect:XML = treeData.row.(@id=="3")[0]; > > myTree.expandItem(xmlSelect); //will expand the row with id==3; > > use ".." or "descendants" to go arbitrarily deep in the tree. > > > > > > Tracy > The WebService call is actually returning a lot of data, that is picked apart by a framework and dispatched to various controls. So it must enter this method as an XMLNode. And remember, this control is now working - I am just curious as to whether the current default implementation of getChildren is at all useful in a case with no root - or is that a bug/limitation I should lodge? Cheers, Radek
