itemUpdated implies you changed properties of some item. setItemAt implies you replaced that instance with another instance. Things like selection will be abandoned.
________________________________ From: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of syndicate_ai Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:51 PM To: flexcoders@yahoogroups.com Subject: [flexcoders] Re: Differences between itemUpdated and setItemAt for ArrayCollections --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com <mailto:flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com> , "j_lentzz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a general question about when to use the two methods > itemUpdated and setItemAt on ArrayCollections. > > if you use obj = getItemAt(someIndex) and then change some properties > in the obj, what difference is there between using > setItemAt(obj,someIndex) or using itemUpdated(obj)? Is there a > particular reason to choose one over the other? > > Thanks, > > John > you generally use setItemAt if you need to completly replace the object in that part of the arraycollection. For instance, we have a backend delegate class that instantiates new objects all the time, each being different but needs to replace the item that already exists in the collection (each object being replaced is progressivly more lightweight) so SetItemAt is necessary for us, its more costly because the view has to completly rerender for that item. getItemAt would be better if you are just changing a few attributes on the object, because a view only needs to change if certain attributes are different from before. Thants what i think anyway
