Alex, I think your missing the real loop here... the method findRowIndices loops through all the buttons every call. Where as the buttonIndices only contains button indices that were found during the findRowIndices method. Having the array one call the single method would run the findRowIndices for every button label which to me seems very redundant. Where as it is right now, it only runs findRowIndices once, and then only runs 1 count through the loop of the buttonIndices. Although if someone had duplicate button labels, all matches would get picked up during this method.
I understand your idea of it now. But since I'm not able to directly address a specific button without finding it first, makes it hard to have the array call the single method. I think we both look at this problem from different sides... When I get back later on I'll see if I can find an efficient way to test your idea so everything gets a fair try. -Mark -Mark On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Look ok. Is there a reason you chose to have setButtonEnabled call > setButtonsEnabled instead of having setButtonsEnabled call setButtonEnabled > in its loop? That way folks using setButtonEnabled don't pay the price of > the loop setup and wrapping the single label in an array. > > You don't have to change the way you have it since it would be rare for > this > API to actually be used so much it would be a performance issue. I'm just > pointing out things I think about when I see code. In the SDK, I think we > use both patterns. The commitSelectedItem calls commitSelectedItems > because > there is supposed to be a single valueCommit event at then end of a set of > selection changes and there is no way for commitSelectedItem to know if it > should dispatch valueCommit or not, but if there is no aggregate event I > think having the single do the work is slightly more efficient. > > Anyway, thanks for doing this work. > > -Alex > > On 5/4/13 7:02 AM, "Mark Kessler" <kesslerconsult...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ok I put it together this morning. Can see the modified example on my > site > > [1] with view source enabled. The git history at [2]. and So you don't > > actually have to goto either, I will paste the current methods below. 4 > > Methods brought down to two methods. The new common method I will end up > > using later. Yes I wish to keep the string based method... this would > be a > > perfect case for method overloading if it were supported in AS. > > > > [1] http://people.apache.org/~mkessler/examples/FLEX-33524/app.swf > > [2] > > > https://github.com/KesslerConsulting/example/commits/master/frameworks/project > > s/spark/src/spark/components/supportClasses/ButtonBarBase.as > > > > > > /** > > */ > > public function getButtonIndices(labelValues:Array, fieldName:String > = > > ""):Array > > { > > var buttonIndices:Array; > > > > > > if (!dataGroup || labelValues.length < 1 || labelValues == null) > > { > > return []; > > } > > > > if (fieldName == "" || fieldName == null) > > { > > return findRowIndices(labelField, labelValues); > > } > > else > > { > > return findRowIndices(fieldName, labelValues); > > } > > } > > > > > > /** > > */ > > public function setButtonEnabled(labelValue:String, > > enabledValue:Boolean, fieldName:String = ""):void > > { > > setButtonsEnabled([labelValue], enabledValue, fieldName); > > } > > > > > > /** > > */ > > public function setButtonsEnabled(labelValues:Array, > > enabledValue:Boolean, fieldName:String = ""):void > > { > > var btnCurrent:ButtonBarButton = null; > > var buttonIndices:Array; > > var indicesTotal:uint = 0; > > var loopingIndex:uint = 0; > > > > > > buttonIndices = getButtonIndices(labelValues, fieldName); > > indicesTotal = buttonIndices.length; > > > > if (indicesTotal == 0) > > { > > return; > > } > > > > > > for (loopingIndex; loopingIndex < indicesTotal; loopingIndex++) > > { > > btnCurrent = > > dataGroup.getElementAt(buttonIndices[loopingIndex]) as ButtonBarButton; > > btnCurrent.enabled = enabledValue; > > } > > } > > > > > > -Mark > > > > > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 12:41 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> Hi Mark, > >> > >> My personal preference is for #2, but only slightly. IMO, fewer APIs > are > >> better as long as they are discoverable, but you can go with #1 if you > >> want. > >> My only thought was that it appears that at least internally most of the > >> code could be in a setButtonEnabled() method and even the array version > >> would just call that method. > >> > >> -Alex > >> > >> > > -- > Alex Harui > Flex SDK Team > Adobe Systems, Inc. > http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui > >
