In the callback function. The callback function would probably process some node and update variables so when it gets called again it knows to process a different node.
On 6/25/15, 7:46 AM, "mark goldin" <[email protected]> wrote: >I see. Alex, I am looking into the article you have provided. Just a quick >question. Where do I put my code to process xml? Because you code is >rendering screen I am not sure how to adapt your code to my needs. > >On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:33 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That sounds like pseudo-threading. You would have to break it up in one >> frame, handle chunks in separate frames, and assemble in the last frame. >> With pseudo-threading, you don’t have to break it up and lose parenting >> and re-assemble, you just keep some state around, and process chunks in >> each frame. >> >> -Alex >> >> On 6/25/15, 7:20 AM, "mark goldin" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >What if I break xml into pieces for separate processing and then put >>them >> >together into one final xml? >> > >> >On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 9:12 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> Well, xml is terribly slow. If you can server-side process it into >> >> something else (RemoteObject/AMF to ValueObjects is considered to be >>the >> >> fastest, ObjectProxy is also slow, JSON might be fast) then you >>might be >> >> able to process all of the data in 60 seconds in ActionScript. >>However, >> >> if one of your customers happens to be running a virus scan or some >> >>other >> >> heavy job at the same time, you might find it exceeds 60 seconds >>anyway. >> >> >> >> Workers or Pseudo-threading [1] might help you. Also having the >>server >> >>do >> >> the processing and send you the results. >> >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui/2008/01/threads_in_actionscript_3.html >> >> >> >> On 6/25/15, 6:52 AM, "mark goldin" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >I have a large xml data that UI needs to process. I am getting the >> >>above >> >> >message about timing out. Not sure I can break my function into >>smaller >> >> >pieces. Any other idea? >> >> > >> >> >Thanks >> >> >> >> >> >>
