On 6/6/14 1:36 PM, "Nicholas Kwiatkowski" <nicho...@spoon.as> wrote:
>Well, the tests that are failing are because those items are directly >manipulating the data underneath the the collection (this would be akin to >manipulating the source array in an array collection, by putting watches >on >them, and changing the order without using the overlying collection. >While >that is technically legal, it's very bad practice. I suppose it is bad practice, but IIRC, lots of people took advantage of the fact that it could work since XML modifications were watchable, so we tried to make it work. If Array was similarly capable of such notifications, it isn't clear we would have created ArrayCollection in the first place. >Putting a flag for the >old method is fine, but if people modify the source data using the >collection instead of the source directly then it is broken. Are you saying that using XMLListCollection APIs to modify the source data has always been broken, or that you didn't like the behavior in how it set up the parent? If there is some debate on what the behavior should be then there probably needs to be a flag to control that behavior. If it was just plain broken, is there no way to make it work in both cases, like set a flag on the XMLListAdapter to tell it that the collection is about to do mutation and therefore not react to some of the notifications? -Alex
