I will be starting a new thread about the tree soon. Please feel free to comment. I definitely need the feedback (and any help you can give me.)
sean On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 12:19:38 +0100, Adrien FOURES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am very interested in your work if you modify x:tree. I update tree > just for me, with adding tag in x:tree declaration, because in would to > catch action when user open a node, so i have to understand how it work, > and now it's working, so if you have question maeby i can help you? good > luck > > Adrien > > Sean Schofield wrote: > > >Adrien, > > > >I can't help you with this question (yet) because I am still > >researching how tree works now. I am going to be working on a > >significant changes to tree very soon though and this is something > >that I've been wondering about myself. (BTW, you can see recent > >thread about some of the improvements being considered - we'd love to > >get feedback from a current tree user.) > > > >Anyways, I don't really understand why these interface methods (such > >as nodesWereRemoved) are even needed. Why should the model notify the > >tree that it has changed? Its not like you can "push" the updated > >tree to the user. You still have to wait for the user to request the > >page again, so why not make the model ignorant of the tree and just > >re-render the tree according to whatever the model is at the time? > > > >I'm very interested in knowing why this functionality is needed > >because I'd like to simplify things by removing it in the new version. > > > > > >sean > > > > > >On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:16:00 +0100, Adrien FOURES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Hello > >> > >>I used the 1.0.8 x:tree version, and i wanted to know what i have to do, > >>to look change in tree after inserted or removed a node in structure. > >> > >>Which function use and how use it? nodesWereRemoved (i have got an > >>exception), nodesWereInserted (i have got an exception), > >>nodeStructureChanged (i have got interface bug -> all my tree node are > >>collapsed) . > >> > >>Thanks a lot for your reply > >>Adrien > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > >
