Is there at least a way the on_get_value() call can know if the row and
column passed are visible? If so, we can avoid a database access and
return an empty string for rows that are not visible.
Don
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:03 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:47
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 09:47 +, Richard Taylor wrote:
> Never mind. I read the source to gtktreeview.c and I now see that there is
> nothing I can do about the calls to on_iter_next(iter). I looks like the
> treeview is determined to know which rows have children even before it has to
> displ
Il giorno mer, 25/01/2006 alle 09.47 +, Richard Taylor ha scritto:
> Never mind. I read the source to gtktreeview.c and I now see that there is
> nothing I can do about the calls to on_iter_next(iter). I looks like the
> treeview is determined to know which rows have children even before it h
Never mind. I read the source to gtktreeview.c and I now see that there is
nothing I can do about the calls to on_iter_next(iter). I looks like the
treeview is determined to know which rows have children even before it has to
display the row.
So I am stuck with 40K calls to on_iter_next(iter)
Hi
I am trying to build a subclass of GenericTreeModel for use with a large
Berkeley DB database. I have it just about working but one thing I noticed is
that TreeView appears to work out the length of the GenericTreeModel by
repeatably calling GenericTreeModel.on_iter_next(iter). For a large t
