great,

thanks alot guys!

On Saturday, December 20, 2014 3:28:17 AM UTC+2, arthure wrote:
>
> I think Daniel's on the money here. By adding lifecycle callbacks to the 
> card-item object, I can see that the card-item's index property isn't set 
> until the card-item is actually added to the DOM (that is, when the 
> attached callback is called).
>
> If you really need to avoid the extra calls to getCardIndexedName(), you 
> could delay calling it until the index is set. For example, define an 
> indexChanged handler in the card-item and call getCardIndexedName there.
>
> Here's a version of that:
>
> http://jsbin.com/kizexo/2/edit
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
> Arthur 
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Daniel Llewellyn <[email protected] 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19 December 2014 at 10:19, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote:
>>>
>>> hello Arthur,
>>>
>>> first, thanks alot for answring.
>>>
>>> sorry for the syntax error, i wrote it fast and didn't notice.
>>>
>>> let me clear my question.
>>>
>>> i've edited the jsbin
>>> http://jsbin.com/zuqojokamo/2/edit
>>>
>>> lets say we have another javascript file.
>>>
>>> and that getCardIndexedName calls app.getCardIndexedName with the card 
>>> item and the index.
>>> app.getCardIndexedName returns a string.
>>>
>>> the thing is when i call app.getCardIndexedName the index is undefined 
>>> for the first 2 times. (there are 4 calls for some reason)
>>>
>>> i think it happens because the index is not yet defined because the 
>>> polymer isn't yet ready. 
>>>
>>> but still the thing is that there are 4 calls(2 before polymer ready, 
>>> and 2 after). my question is why? and how can i fix this issue.
>>>
>>> thanks again.
>>>
>>
>> I believe the reason for doubling up is the first two are fired when the 
>> element is created but the data hasn't propagated yet, and the second two 
>> are fired when the data is identified as changed and applied to the 
>> template.
>>
>> (NOTE: I'm not a core polymer dev, just a watcher and sometime consumer, 
>> and therefore my theory above may be invalid.)
>>
>> -- 
>> Daniel Llewellyn
>> Bang Communications Limited
>> t: 01256 370 952
>>  
>> Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Polymer" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CABtuYwceOVAb8a5q6-XWHSeFut%2ByiHE%3DxOe1S405rnn1hNwr7w%40mail.gmail.com
>>  
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CABtuYwceOVAb8a5q6-XWHSeFut%2ByiHE%3DxOe1S405rnn1hNwr7w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Polymer" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/0c9d51e2-1f91-47a1-8e7c-c859e0a5d8f7%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to