[flexcoders] Re: Differences between itemUpdated and setItemAt for ArrayCollections
###itemUpdated notifies the view that an item has been updated. Flex says to the view ..you are stale now ...please update yourself with latest changes from the arraycollectionlike a view.refresh() ###SetItemAt is replacing the dataItem in the ArrayCollection. Like when u manually edit the viewu may want to call the setItemAt to propagate the changes from the view to the arraycollection. I know this is automated but when u do validations u may want to put a logic wheather u want oldValue or newValue in the arraycollection . In such cases u may have to call arraycollection.setItemAt to manually update the arraycollection. --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, j_lentzz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. Thanks. Makes sense. John --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Alex Harui aharui@ wrote: 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 jelentz@ 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
[flexcoders] Re: Differences between itemUpdated and setItemAt for ArrayCollections
###itemUpdated notifies the view that an item has been updated. Flex says to the view ..you are stale now ...please update yourself with latest changes from the arraycollectionlike a view.refresh() ###SetItemAt is replacing the dataItem in the ArrayCollection. Like when u manually edit the viewu may want to call the setItemAt to propagate the changes from the view to the arraycollection. I know this is automated but when u do validations u may want to put a logic wheather u want oldValue or newValue in the arraycollection . In such cases u may have to call arraycollection.setItemAt to manually update the arraycollection. --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, j_lentzz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok. Thanks. Makes sense. John --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Alex Harui aharui@ wrote: 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 jelentz@ 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
[flexcoders] Re: Differences between itemUpdated and setItemAt for ArrayCollections
--- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.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
RE: [flexcoders] Re: Differences between itemUpdated and setItemAt for ArrayCollections
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
[flexcoders] Re: Differences between itemUpdated and setItemAt for ArrayCollections
Ok. Thanks. Makes sense. John --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Alex Harui [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 jelentz@ 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
