I want to trace every event on every object, is there any way to do it?
Yes and no.
The one way is to simply override its dispatchEvent function:
override public function dispatchEvent(event:Event):Boolean
{
// Do something with event.
return super.dispatchEvent( event );
}
The problem, however, is that this does not always work -- sometimes dispatchEvent is not called if a child object does something. It also will not work if you are unwilling to create a special class for each instance.
Another alternative is to iterate through an array of different event types:
var evtTypes:Array = [ MouseEvent.CLICK, MouseEvent.ROLL_OVER,
MouseEvent.MOUSE_DOWN...
Event.ADDED, Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE... etc.];
for( var i:int = 0; i < evtTypes.length; i++ )
{
target.addEventListener( evtTypes[ i ], trace );
}
The problem with this method is that you'll not be able to capture custom events, only the events you have in your list. I would definitely recommend the second method for most learning and debugging problems.
I suppose a more important question, however, is "What do you want to do with these events?" Most of the documentation lists all of the events an object will dispatch: if you scroll down in the MovieClip documentation, you'll see an example.
You have to create your own registry and access it that way. So yes, there is a way to do it, but no, not easily.
Related
Take MenuItem as an example, normally in QML, specifying the handler for the triggered signal is simple:
MenuItem {
onTriggered: {
console.log("Hey");
}
}
Now if I want to do the same thing, but instead to a dynamically created MenuItem, e.g. via Menu.addItem(), then what is the syntax like to connect and specify the signal handler?
I didn't expect this to work, but here is a working solution:
function onTriggered() {
console.log("Hey");
}
var newItem = myMenu.addItem("Item 1");
newItem.triggered.connect(onTriggered);
Nevertheless is there a better way? Above I defined a custom function that happened to be named onTriggered, but it can be named anything, right? So this code piece doesn't make use of the built-in handler, that's why I'm wondering if there's a neater solution?
More importantly, later on I've noticed further problems with this approach: in a for loop, if there is a temporary variable used by the handler, things don't work any more:
for (var i = 0; i < myArray.length; i ++) {
var info = myArray[i];
var newItem = myMenu.addItem("Item " + i);
newItem.triggered.connect(function() {
console.log(info);
});
}
Here you'll see that console prints the last info in myArray for all added menu items when triggered. How can I properly set up independent handlers for each individual menu item?
In addition to the comments, you can easily make it "easier":
Menu {
id: myMenu
function add(text, handler) {
var newItem = addItem(text)
newItem.triggered.connect(handler)
}
}
And there you have it, problem solved, now you can simply myMeny.add("Item 1", onTriggered)
As for the result you get in the loop and functor, that's because of JS's scoping rules. Check the linked answer for details how to work around that.
So this code piece doesn't make use of the built-in handler
Don't think of onSignal as a handler, it is just a hook to attach a handler. Think of it as the declarative connection syntax. Sure, you can also use the Connection element in declarative, but it only makes sense when the situation actually merits it.
I think this confusion stems from some other language / framework which does generate handler methods for you. A onSignal is different from function onSignal() { expression } - the latter is a handler function, the former is handler hook, which just connects the signal to the bound expression.eval(). The Qt documentation too refers to onSignal as a handler, which IMO is technically and conceptually wrong, since the handler is the code which gets executed, the handler is whatever you bind to onSignal.
So you can rest easy, the code you are worried about does not result in any sort of redundancy or inefficiency and doesn't leave anything unused and is in fact the correct way to do things in QML.
All that being said, you can have "built in handlers", but it is a very different thing:
// SomeItem.qml
Item {
signal someSignal
onSomeSignal: console.log("I am a built in handler")
}
// main.qml
SomeItem {
onSomeSignal: console.log("I am another handler")
Component.onCompleted: {
someSignal.connect(function(){console.log("Yet another handler")})
someSignal()
}
}
And the output in the console will say:
qml: I am a built in handler
qml: I am another handler
qml: Yet another handler
As you see, it not really a handler, but a connection hook. There is no shadowing, no "replacing / not using the built in handler", there is just a signal with 3 connections to the evaluation of three expressions.
Using signal.connect() with a named function does come with one advantage, you can later signal.disconnect(namedFunction) if you need to remove a built in or another handler. I am not sure if you can do this if you use onSignal: expr since you don't have a way to reference that anonymous expression. Note that if you use onSignal: namedFunction() this will not work, you will not be able to signal.disconnect(namedFunction) because the signal is not directly connected to that function, but to an anonymous expression invoking it.
I use a unit of work pattern a lot in my flex projects. I'll have a class that might call a web service, put the data in a sqlite db, refresh a model with the data then raise an event.
I usually call these inline and pass in some singleton classes:
protected function CareerSynced():void
{
var process:ProcessWorkouts = new ProcessWorkouts(_dataModel, _trainerModel, _databaseCache, _database.Conn);
process.addEventListener("AllWorkoutsProcessed", AllWorkoutsProcessed);
process.UpdateAllUnprocessed();
}
I'll then get the response like this:
private function AllWorkoutsProcessed(event:DataReceivedEvent):void
{
//do something here
}
My question is, am I adding that event listener correctly? I think I might be causing a memory leak, but I'm not sure. I've also thought about using a weak reference. I'm confused about when to use them. Would this be one of those cases?
Should it be like this?
process.addEventListener("AllWorkoutsProcessed", AllWorkoutsProcessed,false, 0, true);
I would either go with the weak reference or just remove the listener:
private function AllWorkoutsProcessed(event:DataReceivedEvent):void
{
event.target.removeEventListener("AllWorksoutsProcessed",AllWorkoutsProcessed);
}
I could list out my reasons but I'll just point you to this.
I have some questions with a particular structure of a program I'm writing.
I'm using a Remote Object to make a remote call to a Rails method (using WebOrb). The problem arises in the way that I get my data back.
Basically I have a function, getConditions, in which I add an event listener to my remote call and then I make the remote call. However, what I want to do is to get that data back in getConditions so I can return it. This is a problem because I only access the event result data in the event handler. Here's some basic code describing this issue:
public function getConditions():Array
{
remoteObject.getConditions.addEventListener("result", onConditionResult);
remoteObject.getConditions();
//Here is where I want to get my event.result data back
}
public function onConditionResult(event:ResultEvent):void
{
//Here's the data that I want
event.result;
}
How can I achieve this data turn-about?
Remote calls in flex are always asynchronous so you won't be able to call getConditions() and wait there for the result. You have to use a function closure to process the results, either by means of an event handler than you declare elsewhere or a dynamic one created immediately within getConditions(), like so:
remoteObject.getConditions.addEventListener("result", function(event:ResultEvent):void {
// Run the code that you would want to when process the result.
});
remoteObject.getConditions();
The advantage of doing the above is that you would be able to "see" parameters passed to getConditions() or the result of any logic that happened before addEventListener() in the function closure. This however, takes a slight performance hit compared to declaring an explicit function (for that exact reason).
I should also add that doing so requires you to clean up after yourselves to make sure that you are not creating a new listener for every request.
you do it like this
public function getConditions():Array
{
remoteObject.getConditions.addEventListener("result", onConditionResult);
remoteObject.getConditions();
}
public function callMyExtraFunction(data:Object):void
{
//Here is where you want to get your event.result data back
}
public function onConditionResult(event:ResultEvent):void
{
//Here's the data that you want
var data:Object = event.result;
callMyExtraFunction(data);
}
You could make use of Call Responder like so :
<s:CallResponder id="getOperationsResult"/>
then use these lines to get the result from get operations
getOperationResult.token = remoteObject.getOperation();
this creates the call and returns the result stores it in getOpresult
whnever u want to access this u can call that token or getOperationResult.lastResult
Hope that helps
Chris
I've got a business class, Spam and the corresponding view class, SpamView.
How can I augment MouseEvents coming out of SpamView so the MouseEvents which come out of it contain a reference to the instance of Spam which the SpamView is displaying?
Here's how I'd like to use it:
class ViewContainer {
...
for each (spam in spams) {
addChild(new SpamView(spam));
...
function handleMouseMove(event:MouseEvent) {
if (event is SpamViewMouseEvent)
trace("The mouse is being moved over spam:", spam)
}
}
Thanks!
Things I've considered which don't work:
Adding event listeners to each SpamView: the book keeping (making sure that they are added/removed properly) is a pain.
Using event.target: the event's target may be a child of the SpamView (which isn't very useful)
Listening for a MouseEvent, creating a new SpamViewMouseEvent, copying all the fields over, then dispatching that: copying all the fields manually is also a pain.
There are multiple ways to solve this puppy. I would use your #2 option, but build a utility function that gets all of the spamViews on the screen and do a couple of if-elses in looping over your spamViews.
var targ : DisplayObject = DisplayObject(event.target)
If(targ is SpamView) //then you know what's up.
If( loopedSpamView.contains(targ) ) // then the target is inside the spamViewContainer and you should be cool.
Best of luck,
Jeremy
I am trying to add some Sprite objects as the contents of an array, and I would like to be able to "clear" them from the stage. I would assume that if there are loaders involved, I need to do
_imgArray[i].close();
_imgArray[i].unload();
And if I am using a sprite, I can do:
removeChild(_imgArray[i]);
None of the above work. WHY???
For an example and/or description of how I am setting this up, see Joel's post here
...but note that he hasn't included a reference for deleting them from view.
Currently I try:
for(i = 0; i < _localXML.length(); i++)
{
var tmp:BMLink = new BMLink(_localXML[i], _bw, _bh, i);
_imgArray[i] = tmp;
_imgArray[i].x = (_bw + _mainpad) * i;
_base.addChild(_imgArray[i]);
}
But this doesn't work.
I would love it if someone could explain to me why this wouldn't be proper syntax.
The class instances that are populating the array are all extending sprite, but they have their own individual loaders inside w/ progress events etc.
jml
OK; I finally figured it out through a bunch of trial and error.
It seems that I was attempting to remove the child of my main class sprite (this) rather than the sub-sprite that I had added the children to.
Sorry for the noise, but for the record, if you find that you can't do
this.removeChild(_imgArray[i]);
it's not because you don't have the correct syntax, but because you might not have an
_imgArray[i]
at that particular point of your display list hierarchy... so...
_base.removeChild(_imgArray[i]);
...worked in this case.
jml
You can make an Interface IDestroy for example with a destroy method who will manage all cleaning/removing stuff :
public interface IDestroy{
function destroy():void;
}
public class MySprite extends Sprite implements IDestroy {
..
public function destroy():void{
// remove events
..
// remove loader
..
//remove from parent
if (parent!==null){
parent.removeChild(this);
}
// etc.. more cleaning
}
}
then when you have an object who is an instance of IDestroy you can call the destroy method
if (myObject is IDestroy){
IDestroy(myObject).destroy();
}
or another way
var id:IDestroy=myObject as IDestroy;
if (id!==null)
id.destroy();
Edit:
I don't understand why any of the method i gave you in the comment will not work but _base.removeChild(_imgArray[i]) will :
addChild and removeChild accept only a DisplayObject as a parameter, so if you can do _base.addChild(_imgArray[i]) it means that _imgArray[i] inherits from DisplayObject and _imgArray[i] has a parent.
So var myDisplayObject:DisplayObject=_imgArray[i] as DisplayObject; will not return null and you will be able todo myDisplayObject.parent.removeChild(myDisplayObject); which is a general approach to your problem without relying on your _base DisplayObjectContainer (MovieClip/Sprite/...)