I am new in iOS Development, what is major difference in these two statements and what logic is behind them. when which statement we should use...
let tableView = UITableView()
You are creating an instance of UITableView and assigning it to the constants named tableView.
let tableView: UITableView!
You are telling the compiler that tableView constant will contain an instance of UITableView in the future and with ! you are making sure that this constant will have a value before accessing it. But as you have declared it as a constant so you cannot assign/change the value to it. Use var to make it variable (assuming you know the difference between let and var).
For better understanding go through the Swift Basics.
Related
I was wondering how to bind values where the source of the bind could be null.
I have a property:
private ObjectProperty<Operation> operation = new SimpleObjectProperty<>(null);
I also have a text field:
#FXML
private Text txtCurrentOperation;
I would like to bind the textProperty of the field to the value of the operation object.
My first thought was to use FluentAPI with its when/then/otherwise construct, but it is eagerly evaluated so the solution:
Bindings.when(operation.isNotNull())
.then("null")
.otherwise(operation.get().getName()));
will throw a NPE, because the parameter of otherwise is evaluated no matter what the result of the when.
My next idea was to use lambda somehow:
txtCurrentOperation.textProperty().bind(() ->
new SimpleStringProperty(
operation.isNotNull().get() ? "Null" : operation.get().getName()
));
But the bind has no lambda enabled solution. (Later I realized that it couldn't have, becasue the real work goes backward: the change of the binded object (operation) will trigger the update of the binder (the field text property).)
Some articles I found suggested to use an "extremal" value for the property instead of null. But Operation is a complex and heavy weight component so it is not trivial to construct an artifical instance to represent null. Even more, this seems to me boilercode, something the binding mechanism is designed to help eliminating.
My next try was to logically swap the binding direction and add listener to the operation property and let it update the field programatically. It works and rather simple as long as the need of update only depends the operation object instances:
operation.addListener((e) -> {
txtCurrentOperation.setText(operation.isNull().get() ?
"Null" : operation.get().getName());
});
operation.set(oper);
It is relatively simple, but doesn't work: it throws "A bound value cannot be set." exception and I don't see why is the text property of the control regarded as bound.
I ran out of ideas. After much searching, I still cannot solve the simple problem to update a text field differently based on whether the source is null or not.
This seems so simple and everyday problem, that I am sure I missed the solution.
If a 3rd party library is an option, check out EasyBind. Try something like this:
EasyBind.select(operation)
.selectObject(Operation::nameProperty)
.orElse("null");
There's also a JavaFX JIRA issue for the type of functionality provided by EasyBind. If you don't want to use a 3rd party library, try Bindings.select:
Bindings.when(operation.isNotNull())
.then("null")
.otherwise(Bindings.select(operation, "name"));
Be aware the null checking in Bindings.select isn't super efficient. There's a JIRA issue for it.
Just in case if somebody using not Java itself but Kotlin.
It is a good idea to use wonderful tornadofx library.
There you can just use operation.select{it.name}. Although, this feature seems not to be documented yet, so it took some time to discover it.
Assume that I have a workflow with 3 Custom Activities which are placed in a Sequence Activity. And I created a Boolean variable (name it as “FinalResult”) at Sequence Activity level (Root) to hold the Result. My Intention is, I want to assign each Custom Activity Result to Root level variable (“FinalResult”) within the Custom Activity Execute method after finishing the activity.
I can get this by declaring the output argument in Custom Activity and placing the variable name at design time in the properties window of activity manually while designing the policy.
But I don’t want to do this by the end user. I want just the end user drag and drop the activities and write conditions on the” FinalResult” variable. Internally I have to maintain the Activity Result in “FinalResult” Variable through programmatically.
Finally I want to maintain the workflow state in “FinalResult” variable and access it anytime and anywhere in the workflow.
I tried like this below getting error "Property does not exist".
WorkflowDataContext dataContext = context.DataContext;
PropertyDescriptorCollection propertyDescriptorCollection = dataContext.GetProperties();
foreach (PropertyDescriptor propertyDesc in propertyDescriptorCollection)
{
if (propertyDesc.Name == "FinalResult")
{
object data = propertyDesc.GetValue(dataContext);// as WorkUnitSchema;
propertyDesc.SetValue(dataContext, "anil");
break;
}
}
Please let us know the possible solutions for the same.
I do this all the time.
Simply implement IActivityTemplateFactory in your activity. When dragged and dropped onto the design surface, the designer will determine if your activity (or whatever is being dropped) implements this interface. If it does, it will construct an instance and call the Create method.
Within this method you can 1) instantiate your Activity and 2) configure it. Part of configuring it is binding your Activities' properties to other Activities' arguments and/or variables within the workflow.
There are a few ways to do this. Most simply, require these arguments/variables have well known names. In this case, you can simply bind to them via
return new MyActivity
{
MyInArgument = new VisualBasicValue<object>(MyActivity.MyInArgumentDefaultName),
};
where MyActivity.MyInArgumentDefaultName is the name of the argument or variable you are binding to.
Alternatively, if that variable/argument is named by the user... you're in for a world of hurt. Essentially, you have to
Cast the DependencyObject target passed to the Create method to an ActivityDesigner
Get the ModelItem from that AD
Walk up the ModelItem tree until you find the argument/value of the proper type
Use its name to create your VisualBasicValue
Walking up the ModelItem tree is super duper hard. Its kind of like reflecting up an object graph, but worse. You can expect, if you must do this, that you'll have to fully learn how the ModelItem works, and do lots of debugging (write everything down--hell, video it) in order to see how you must travel up the graph, what types you encounter along the way, and how to get their "names" (hint--it often isn't the Name property on the ModelItem!). I've had to develop a lot of custom code to walk the ModelItem tree looking for args/vars in order to implement a drag-drop-forget user experience. Its not fun, and its not perfect. And I can't release that code, sorry.
Let's say that I have a canvas component called myCanvas and I instantiated it with
var myCanvasPage:myCanvas = new myCanvas;
this.addChild(myCanvasPage);
Then I want to essentially reload myCanvasPage later on. In effect I want to do this:
this.removeChild(myCanvasPage);
var myCanvasPage:myCanvas = new myCanvas;
this.addChild(myCanvasPage);
except instead of creating a new instance of myCanvas, I want to use the already created instance of myCanvas and essentially reload or re-create it but making sure that the instance name and references to it remain the same. What would be the best way to do this?
Whenever you do
var myCanvasPage:myCanvas = new myCanvas;
you are instantiating the myCanvasPage Object.
Removing an object from the stage will not delete the Object from memory.
As long as there is a reference somewhere in your code the myCanvasPage Object will not be garbage collected and all the values and attributes will be the same as at the time you removed it from the stage.
To make that reference you have to scope it to your class.
public var myCanvasPage:myCanvas = new myCanvas;
So now you would reference it with
this.myCanvasPage
and when you are ready to add it back to the stage.
this.addChild(this.myCanvasPage);
So to recap you can add and remove an Object from stage
this.addChild(this.myCanvasPage);
this.removeChild(this.myCanvasPage);
all day long and the data in that object will never go away.
Some good reading on garbage collection
What do you mean as "reloading"? Maybe it is simpler to create data-driven components and change that data to change or reset component state>
Woa I'm not sure where to start here... I think THE_asMan addresses most of your misunderstandings. The missing bit I think you need to look into is how a reference to an object holds (i.e. is counted) as long as it doesn't go out of scope. Just keep in mind that as long as the a variable is not out of scope, its reference to some object (if there is one, i.e. if it is not null) is counted.
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/ActionScript/3.0_ProgrammingAS3/WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f9d.html#WS5b3ccc516d4fbf351e63e3d118a9b90204-7f8c
i have a Flex tree control and im trying to select a tree node 3 levels down right after the dataProvider is assigned with a collection object like the following.
basically treeItem1, treeItem2, treeItem3 are the nodes in the tree and treeitem3 is a child of treeItem2 which is a child of treeItem1. Assume these treeItem(1,2,3) are referenced correctly from the collection items.
my problem is that if i wait for the whole component to load completely then select the nodes, it open/select/scrolltoIndex correctly. However, if i were to select the node right after the dataProvider is assigned, then it doesn't even open or select (basically the this.treeService.selectedItem is always null).
can anyone point out what i did wrong? is there anything needs to happen after the dataProvider is assigned?
thanks
this.treeService.dataProvider = oPricingHelper.getCurrentPricingSercicesTreeSource();
this.treeService.expandItem(treeItem1, true);
this.treeService.expandItem(treeItem2, true);
this.treeService.selectedItem = treeItem3;
this.treeService.scrollToIndex(this.treeService.selectedIndex);
I have used the updateComplete event to know when a component (such as a DataGroup or List) has completed rendering after performing a simple task (such as updating the dataProvider reference). Of course, you have to be careful and remove listening to updateComplete because it can run a lot, unless you have a need for it to run.
Something like:
//...some function...
this.treeService.addEventListener(FlexEvent.UPDATE_COMPLETE, onTreeUpdateComplete);
this.treeService.dataProvider = oPricingHelper.getCurrentPricingSercicesTreeSource();
//...rest of some function...
private function onTreeUpdateComplete(event:FlexEvent):void {
this.treeService.removeEventListener(FlexEvent.UPDATE_COMPLETE, onTreeUpdateComplete);
this.treeService.expandItem(treeItem1, true);
this.treeService.expandItem(treeItem2, true);
this.treeService.selectedItem = treeItem3;
this.treeService.scrollToIndex(this.treeService.selectedIndex);
}
I'm not positive your experiencing the same issue but I seem to have the same type of problem with using the advanced data grid, it appears in these cases where the dataprovider is acceptable as multiple types, the components do some extra work in the background to wrap things up into something Hierarchical (HierarchicalData or HierarchicalCollectionView) and in doing so the dataprovider setter call is not synchronous (so it will return before actually having assigned the internal property storing the dataprovider). I've used callLater in this case with moderate success, callLater is generally a bad practice but basically adds a function to a list of functions to call once background processing is done, so this is assuming that something in the dataprovider setter called UIComponent.suspendBackgroundProcessing() and that it will subsequently call UIComponent.resumeBackgroundProcessing() and then it will execute the list of functions added by using callLater. Alternatively you could use setTimeout(someFunction,1000).
These are both "hacks" the real solution is to dig into the framework code and see what it's really doing when you tell it to set the dataprovider. Wherever you see that it actually has set the dataprovider you could extend that class and dispatch an event that you could listen for to run the function to do the selections after this point.
If anyone has a better solution please by all means correct me (I would love to have a better answer than this)
I am trying to duplicate a flex component at run time.
For example if i have this
mx:Button label="btn" id="btn" click="handleClick(event)"/>
i should be able to call a function called DuplicateComponent() and it should return me a UI component thts exactly same as above button including the event listeners with it.
Can some one help me please??
Thanks in advance
Do a Byte Array Copy. This code segment should do it for you:
// ActionScript file
import flash.utils.ByteArray;
private function clone(source:Object):*
{
var myBA:ByteArray = new ByteArray();
myBA.writeObject(source);
myBA.position = 0;
return(myBA.readObject());
}
One note, I did not write this code myself, I'm pretty sure I got it from a post on the Flex Coder's list.
To solve that problem you should use actionscript and create the buttons dynamically.
Lets say you want the button(s) to go in a VBox called 'someVbox'
for (var i:uint = 0; i< 10; i++){
var but:Button = new Button();
but.label = 'some_id_'+i;
but.id = 'some_id_'+i;
but.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, 'handleClick');
someVbox.addChild(but);
}
I haven't tested it, but that should add 10 buttons to a vbox with a bit of luck.
You can't take a deep copy of UIComponents natively. You're best bet would be to create a new one and analyse the one you have to add a duplicate setup. To be honest this does sound like a bit of a code smell. I wonder if there may be a better solution to the problem with a bit of a rethink..
Same question as: http://www.flexforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1421
Showing up in a google search for the same thing. So you've cut&pasted the same question a month later. No luck eh?
There is no easy way to do this that I know of. Many of a component's settings are dependent on the container/context/etc... and get instantiated during the creation process, so there's no reason to clone from that perspective.
You can clone key settings in actionscript and use those when creating new elements.
For instance, assuming you only care about properties, you might have an array ["styleName","width","height",...], and you can maybe use the array like this:
var newUI:UIComponent = new UIComponent();
for each(var s:String in propArray) {
newUI[s] = clonedUI[s];
}
If you want more bites on your question (rather than waiting a month), tell us what you are trying to achieve.
mx.utils.ObjectUtil often comes in handy, however for complex object types, it's typically good practice to implement an interface that requires a .clone() method, similar to how Events are cloned.
For example:
class MyClass implements ICanvasObject
{
...
public function clone():ICanvasObject
{
var obj:MyClass = new MyClass(parameters...);
return obj;
}
}
This gives your code more clarity and properly encapsulates concerns in the context of how the object is being used / cloned.
You are right but as per my understanding UI Components are not cloned by mx.utils.ObjectUtil.
from : http://livedocs.adobe.com/flex/201/langref/mx/utils/ObjectUtil.html#copy()
copy () method
public static function copy(value:Object):Object
Copies the specified Object and returns a reference to the copy. The copy is made using a native serialization technique. This means that custom serialization will be respected during the copy.
This method is designed for copying data objects, such as elements of a collection. It is not intended for copying a UIComponent object, such as a TextInput control. If you want to create copies of specific UIComponent objects, you can create a subclass of the component and implement a clone() method, or other method to perform the copy.
Parameters value:Object — Object that should be copied.
Returns Object — Copy of the specified Object