I post here my question because haxe mailing list is pretty busy with the haxe3 rc relase.
I would like to have some expertise from´others about how to built a recursive helper for erazor template engine used with haxe.
I have a treenode ( polygonal.ds.Treenode ) which is nested to simulate a html hierarchy.
Now i would like to export my treeNode to a string with nested divs.
I could do it in a recursive function on the logic part of my app, but i'd really like to be able to have it on the templating system.
Does anyone achieved to work with such a recursive helper ?
Thanks
Related
I want to handle multiple operations on a UI Component (button ,textfield, swfs,custom objects etc)
in like scaling,skewing ,color,rotations etc etc and save them too. Earlier the actions were done
using a single tool and single mxml file but now the tool is separated into different tools.
Was wondering how i can design / use something like Toolmanager class to handle actions etc?
Also the tricky part is that some objects can have more operations defined for them .
Like 'object1' has 3 operations that can be performed on it and 'object2' has 5 operations defined on it.
We are using MVC design pattern but no frameworks as such.
What are the different design patterns that can be used to do this?
Edit:
To be more precise i want implement this in AS3 OO way.
The application is similar to drawing application which supports addition of various images,text,audio,swfs etc. One added user can perform various operations of the objects..like
adding color,scaling skewing,rotation etc etc and custom effects and after that export the drawing as PNG.Likewise some effects that are applicable to text are not applicable to images
and vice versa. and some effects can be common.
Any ideas?
Probably you could have a toolbar, tools(inheriting from a common base), and some kind of property panel, these objects are accessible from a manager class which wrappes them together and makes some variables accessible for all classes.
Probably you want a selection array or vector in the manager class and a select tool to manipulate this collection
like (in the manager)
protected var _selection:Vector.<EditableBase> = new Vector.<EditableBase>();
public function get selection() { return _selection;}
and a collection about the editbase extensions and the tools avaiable for them.
every time the selection tool updates the selection collection (probably calling a method on manager from the select tool's onMouseUp method) you can update the toolbar to display the apropriate tools for the current selection
(in manager)
protected var _ToolsByType:Object (or Dictionary) = {"EditableAudio": ["toolA", "toolB", etc]};
protected var _defaultSet:Array = ["toolA", "toolB"];
and after the selection has benn manipulated (in manager also)
public function onSelectionChangedCallback():void
{
var toolsToDisplay:Array = _defaultSet;
if(_selection.length == 1)
{
//not actual syntax
var type:String = getQualifiedClassName(_selection[0]);
if(type in _ToolsByType) toolsToDisplay = _ToolsByType[type];
}
myToolBar.showSet(toolsToDisplay);
}
the ancestor for the tools should look something like this:
public class ToolBase
{
protected var _manager:ToolManager;
function ToolBase(manager:ToolManager)//and probably a bunch of other params as well
{
_manager = manager;
}
function onSelect()
{
//you can manipulate the properties panel here
}
function onDeSelect()...
function onMouseDown(mouseData:event/whateverWrapperYouHaveCreated)...
function onMouseMove...
function onMouseUp...
}
and so and so on :)
kinda straight forward.
check photoshop plugin tutorials, or google around "extending {any adobe stuff here, like flash or something}
thats javascript but the concept can be applied here as well
maybe you could use the Strategy Design Pattern by creating some extra classes in your MVC implementation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_pattern
algo, check this tool for images:
http://www.senocular.com/demo/TransformToolAS3/TransformTool.html
bye! :)
I did a small experiment to test whether lamdba expression can retrieve faster results than foreach statement. but, Lambda failed
System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch st = new System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch();
st.Start();
List<int> lst = new List<int>();
foreach (GridViewRow item in GridView1.Rows)
{
if (((CheckBox)item.FindControl("Check")).Checked)
{
lst.Add(Convert.ToInt32(((Label)item.FindControl("Id")).Text));
}
}
st.Stop();
Response.Write(st.Elapsed.ToString());
Response.Write("<br/><br/><br/>");
st.Reset();
st.Start();
List<int> lstRank = GridView1.Rows.OfType<GridViewRow>().Where(s => ((CheckBox)s.FindControl("Check")).Checked)
.Select(s => Convert.ToInt32(((Label)s.FindControl("Id")).Text)).ToList();
st.Stop();
Response.Write(st.Elapsed.ToString());
int i = 0;
output
00:00:00.0000249
00:00:00.0002464
why lambda is slower than foreach. This may be a drawback of lambda expression
Technically your 2 approaches are not identical. There are a few differences such as the use of "OfType" which is filtering the collection before continuing. You'd be better using "Cast<GridViewRow>()" as you know each element is of type GridViewRow.
Also, do you really need the expense of the ToList() at the end of the Linq statement as your linq query is now ready to iterate over and execute rather than having to convert back to a list?
There is a small overhead with lambda expressions because they are "compiled" at runtime. I think that's what you see in your "benchmark". for each ... is a fully compiled statement.
You can precompile lambda expressions. Look here. Maybe you want to rework your code and test again.
I won't talk about the correctness of your code but I'd like to get a chance to explain a general rule
In Software Develpment the performance loss is inversely proportional to the level of abtsraction.
In this case in quite normal that foreach is faster then LINQ (which is more abstract).
If you compare it with the classic for (for (int i:i++l,etc..) ) it will be faster than the foreach.
Access an object thought an interface is slower then access the concrete object : the interface is already a very small level of abstraction.
The code you write will be as much fast as it is "close" to the machine language but of course it will be less readable and maintainable.
The matter is how to find the right level of abstraction for what we are developing keeping an eyes on the performance and the code readability.
You won't need MVC pattern for making a one-page web site that shows a table on a Repeater :-)
I'm in my module file. I want to define some complex variables for use throughout the module. For simple things, I'm doing this:
function mymodule_init() {
define('SOME_CONSTANT', 'foo bar');
}
But that won't work for more complex structures. Here are some ideas that I've thought of:
global:
function mymodule_init() {
$GLOBALS['mymodule_var'] = array('foo' => 'bar');
}
variable_set:
function mymodule_init() {
variable_set('mymodule_var', array('foo' => 'bar'));
}
property of a module class:
class MyModule {
static $var = array('foo' => 'bar');
}
Variable_set/_get seems like the most "drupal" way, but I'm drawn toward the class setup. Are there any drawbacks to that? Any other approaches out there?
I haven't seen any one storing static values that are array objects.
For simple values the drupal way is to put a define in the begining of a modules .module file. This file is loaded when the module is activated so that is enough. No point in putting it in the hook_init function.
variable_set stores the value in the database so don't run it over and over. Instead you could put it in your hook_install to define them once. variable_set is good to use if the value can be changed in an admin section but it's not the best choice to store a static variable since you will need a query to fetch it.
I think all of those methods would work. I have never used it in this fashion, but I believe the context module (http://drupal.org/project/context) also has its own API for storing variables in a static cache. You may want to check out the documentation for the module.
It's always a good practice to avoid globals. So that makes your choice a bit easier.
If you err towards a class, you'll be writing code that is not consistent with the D6 standards. There are a lot of modules that do it but I personally like to keep close to the Drupal core so I can understand it better. And code that's written in different styles through the same application can have an adverse effect on productivity and maintenance.
variable_set() and define() are quite different. Use the former when you can expect that information to change (a variable). Use the latter for constants. Your requirements should be clear as which one to use.
Don't worry too much about hitting the database for variable_set/get. If your software is written well, it should not effect performance hardly at all. Performance work arounds like that should only be implemented if your applications has serious performance issues and you've tried everything else.
I am new to using the Flex Compiler with FD, although certainly not new to flash/as3 and FD. Currently, i have been compiling my applications with FD/CS3 and want to make the switch to the flex compiler. One of the main things i want to experiment with the flex compiler is using Macros in AS3. For instance, say i have some extremely expensive operation that i wish to carry out:
private function Main():void
{
extremelyExpensiveOperation(params);
}
but i want to avoid the cost of a function lookup. So instead of using a function lookup I do something like
private function Main():void
{
<macro expandExtremelyExpensiveOperationHere(params)/>
}
obviously the syntax doesn't have to look exactly like that, but the macro gets expanded before compilation thus avoiding function lookup. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
use misch's preprocessor ... it supports macros as well ...
greetz
back2dos
Should you be allowed to delete an item from the collection you are currently iterating in a foreach loop?
If so, what should be the correct behavior?
I can take quite a sophisticated Collection to support enumerators that track changes to the collection to keep position info correct. Even if it does some compromisation or assumptions need to be made. For that reason most libraries simply outlaw such a thing or mutter about unexpected behaviour in their docs.
Hence the safest approach is to loop. Collect references to things that need deleting and subsequently use the collected references to delete items from the original collection.
It really depends on the language. Some just hammer through an array and explode when you change that array. Some use arrays and don't explode. Some call iterators (which are wholly more robust) and carry on just fine.
Generally, modifying a collection in a foreach loop is a bad idea, because your intention is unknown to the program. Did you mean to loop through all items before the change, or do you want it to just go with the new configuration? What about the items that have already been looped through?
Instead, if you want to modify the collection, either make a predefined list of items to loop through, or use indexed looping.
Some collections such as hash tables and dictionaries have no notion of "position" and the order of iteration is generally not guaranteed. Therefore it would be quite difficult to allow deletion of items while iterating.
You have to understand the concept of the foreach first, and actually it depends on the programming language. But as a general answer you should avoid changing your collections inside foreach
Just use a standard for loop, iterate through the item collection backwards and you should have no problem deleting items as you go.
iterate in reverse direction and delete item one by one... That should proper solution.
No, you should not. The correct behaviour should be to signal that a potential concurrency problem has been encountered, however that is done in your language of choice (throw exception, return error code, raise() a signal).
If you modify a data structure while iterating over its elements, the iterator might no longer be valid, which means that you risk working on objects that are no longer part of the collection. If you want to filter elements based on some more complex notation, you could do something like this (in Java):
List<T> toFilter = ...;
List<T> shadow;
for ( T element : toFilter )
if ( keep(element) )
shadow.add(element);
/* If you'll work with toFilter in the same context as the filter */
toFilter = shadow;
/* Alternatively, if you want to modify toFilter in place, for instance if it's
* been given as a method parameter
*/
toFilter.clear();
toFilter.addAll(shadow);
The best way to remove an item from a collection you are iterating over it to use the iterator explitly. For example.
List<String> myList = ArrayList<String>();
Iterator<String> myIt = myList.iterator();
while (myIt.hasNext()) {
myIt.remove();
}