d Grid?
Thanks
David
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Looks like Spark Datagrid can't do locked rows or columns, so, I guess it's
out.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9315.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
vs Spark
Looks like Spark Datagrid can't do locked rows or columns, so, I guess it's
out.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9315.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
owever,
I'm not sure it can do that ?
One way to do that would be to break the sdk into modules, each with it's
own minimum dependencies, something like NPM in the Node world, or Leiningen
in the Clojure world.
David
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.23
Hi,
> I'll look into 4.13 again, because I'm curious to see how a Spark Datagrid
> with locking rows and columns compares to an MX Datagrid, however, I've not
> found a way to use SDK 4.13 without also changing the minimum player
> requirements.
The 4.13 SDK will work with all player versions dow
ed anywhere in the documentation?
Is there a list of new features introduced since 4.6.0?
For example, the Spark Datagrid functionality?
Thanks
David
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.2333346.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9321.html
Sent from the Apache
s
exceeded the MX version then the rest of the components have too).
IS that correct?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9322.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
orrect?
>
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
>http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-t
>p9314p9322.html
>Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
> The notion that I can get all the bug fixes and new features all the way up
> to 4.13.0, and also not have to increase Player requirements is huge. I wish
> I'd have known that earlier - is it described anywhere in the documentation?
Yep in the README [1]
> Is there a list of new features
Hi,
> The Spark Datagrid seems to use a canvas to scroll and is much, much, more
> responsive that the MX Datagrid.
The performance of theMX data grid has had significant improvement to
performance of it in 4.13 over 4.6 you may want to test that first before
moving to the spark datagrid. It wi
BTW, I'm using 50 columns, and 100 rows, with 2 locked columns, and 4 locked
rows.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9327.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
grid height to
stretch to 100%:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9326.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Thanks Justin.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9328.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
nitialize="init(event)" height="100%">
.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-
on OSX, I'm assuming that performance
will be much better on Windoze (at least that used to be the case).
Dave
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9330.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
="false"
> sortableColumns="false"
> resizableColumns="false"
> dragMoveEnabled="false"
> draggableColumns="false"
> >
>
>
eVirtualLayout='true' ?
David
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-users.246.n4.nabble.com/Flex-Datagrid-MX-vs-Spark-tp9314p9351.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 1/7/15, 4:55 PM, "DavidM" wrote:
>
>Your answer explains why I didn't see any performance difference, however,
>isn't it still a bug for a layout not not respect height="100%" when
>useVirtualLayout='true' ?
Yeah, that’s probably a bug, but I don’t know how many folks leverage that
option in
18 matches
Mail list logo