got it I definately was trying to extend there scope for something they can't
be used for :),
my goal is to get the users to only render what they have to in the vector.
I do not want them to have to re-render the entire Vector each time. The
vector will be constantly added too, there are no mo
the view doesnt keep the iterator, it just iterates over it once when it
renders. iterators arent meant to be kept, they are throwaway objects.
-igor
On 7/18/07, Ballist1c <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> It IS very possible I am going about this from the completely wrong
> angle...
>
> The gist
It IS very possible I am going about this from the completely wrong angle...
The gist of it is, that a whole bunch of users will be reading all the
entries from the same vector in an asynchronised manner. So what I thought
that each user would require their own Iterator to keep track of their
pr
On 7/18/07, Ballist1c <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Yep, I made some adjustments to code, to allow for any number of users to
> join a chatSession, rather then just 2.
>
> What I am doing is , the vector that I am using is within a particular
> class
> and the Iterators for that vector are actua
Yep, I made some adjustments to code, to allow for any number of users to
join a chatSession, rather then just 2.
What I am doing is , the vector that I am using is within a particular class
and the Iterators for that vector are actually stored within another
subclass which is stored within a has