Comments on: Looping in FX

By: Michal Margiel

Michal Margiel — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:22:30 +0000

yeah, but having in mind performance issue when using binding i don’t think that it is worth it.

By: David

David — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:50:03 +0000

As an alternative for fun, and probably lots of problems with this idea, but if popups know their parent popup, what about something like:

var visControl bind parentPopup.visible on replace {
if (! visControl) then visible = false;
}

I realise somewhat less efficient and would require the parent maintenance which may go against the grain, but then simply setting the parent visibility false would be all that was required

By: Java desktop links of the week, November 16 | Jonathan Giles

Java desktop links of the week, November 16 | Jonathan Giles — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:12:12 +0000

[...] Bair posted three blogs on FXExperience.com this week. They are related to looping in FX, function delegation, and seeking feedback on node [...]

By: Michal Margiel

Michal Margiel — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:47:00 +0000

Thx for this post. I didn’t know that we can use “where” in loops.

We could also do the same using :

for (p in childrenPopups[child | child.visible]) {
p.hideAll();
}

Regards
Michał

By: Richard Bair

Richard Bair — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:31:58 +0000

And this is in fact what the current code looks like. However to be honest I think all of the last 3 suggestions (pretty well everything but the first) have the same level of simplicity and clarity, just a matter of taste.

By: Ali Ebrahimi

Ali Ebrahimi — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:26:25 +0000

even, simpler version:

public function hideAll():Void {
for (p in childrenPopups where p.visible) p.hideAll();
hide();
}

By: Carl Dea

Carl Dea — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:34:38 +0000

Rich,

I agree with the others. The third option is cleaner. JavaFX’s ‘where’ keyword makes me think of database SQL statements.

I’m still getting into the JavaFX Script Language mindset (JavaFX-isms, JavaFX-esque). I still have recent code that looks like option one.

-Carl

By: zammbi

zammbi — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:44:21 +0000

I agree with Steven. The 3rd option is much nicer.

By: William Antônio Siqueira

William Antônio Siqueira — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:39:48 +0000

@sherod – me too

By: Steven Herod

Steven Herod — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:20:28 +0000

I think the third option is significantly better than the first option.

And it shows the elegance of jfx script nicely.