Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
This issue was closed by revision ba75c186be08.
Original comment by laurent....@gmail.com
on 13 Apr 2014 at 8:20
Hi Laurent,
I checked your modification and noticed it now fires separate events per
selected item.
That means, if you have a listener triggering an expensive process on a user
interaction, this happens many times instead of the single user interaction.
Based on you implementation, I could also not decide when all events have been
fired.
Last but not least, based on your generic EventType and listener interface, I
need to perform additional checks to find out if the items my listener was
notified about have been selected or deselected.
So far, the "fix" is not what we needed and proposed. :(
Do you see any room for adaptation?
Original comment by benjamin...@gmail.com
on 17 Apr 2014 at 3:28
Hi Benjamin,
I'm sorry that this new release disapointed you, I did not understand your
request :(
I've fixed the behaviour, which is close to a "classical" SWT widget.
If I understand well, you need to know :
a) If a item is selected or deselected (for exemple, a property in the event
contains this information)
b) This event is fired when the selection changed, so it can contains a list of
items
c) This event contains an information saying that this selection/deselection is
done by code or by the user.
I need to implement a new Listener (for example SelectionChangeListener), and
the method selectionChange will have
a parameter SelectionChangedEvents in which you'll find the widget (DualList),
a flag saying "this change has been
done by code or user), a list of beans containing 2 objects :
- the item
- a state : selected of deselected
Does it sound good for you ?
Laurent
Original comment by laurent....@gmail.com
on 17 Apr 2014 at 7:23
This issue was closed by revision d12e0114a62f.
Original comment by laurent....@gmail.com
on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:39
This issue was closed by revision 0b0af41345ac.
Original comment by laurent....@gmail.com
on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:39
This issue was closed by revision 3a440c1db791.
Original comment by laurent....@gmail.com
on 17 Apr 2014 at 9:39
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
benjamin...@gmail.com
on 10 Apr 2014 at 8:35Attachments: