Ok - this means that in Cell.updateItem I would have to add a (weak?)
listener to the item's state property. If the cell is reused for another
item I would have to remove the old listener first. My only concern is
that this will be done a lot when scrolling through the list. Thanks...
If the data item isn't observable, then you need a way to manually poke it.
Basically I can only talk from the Cell to the item, not vice versa.
Unless I would store the cell reference in the item, not a good idea.
So if item state changes, it must be observable from the cell, in some way.
Werner
On 09.07.2013 19:28, Richard Bair wrote:
I think this is different. The idea was that you would bind state on
the cell to the item it is representing, so that it is automatically
updated when needed and then there is no need to manually poke it. If
the data item isn't observable, then you need a way to manually poke
it.
