• Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 180
  • Last Modified:

*Need Muso's Help with this one*

when I trace:

departmentArray.department[0].service.name
departmentArray.department[0].service[0].component.name
departmentArray.department[0].service[0].component[0].values.name

I get:

math
student_checkin
menu


shouldnt it be more like this?

departmentArray.department[0].name
departmentArray.department[0].service[0].name
departmentArray.department[0].service[0].component[0].name


Easy fix?
0
gmailrules
Asked:
gmailrules
  • 3
  • 3
1 Solution
 
muso120999Commented:
Are you talking about this line, and that you think it should trace a value?

departmentArray.department[0].service[0].component[0].name

The thing is, I deliberately made the routine flexible, so that if you have different XML categories, you can simply change:

_root.categoryArray = new Array("department", "service", "component","values");

and you have a similar structure (to any depth required) for that too.

"values" is a holder (like "department"), and although there aren't multiple entries, it leaves the capability there to do so.

Do you honestly see this as a problem!?
0
 
gmailrulesAuthor Commented:
Well it works great no doubt.  I just saw it as a lil confusing.  The reason why I wanted to rename the variables in the first place was to make it easier to understand.  It works , and that's whats most important so it's really not a big deal.  But this is what I'm talking about:

departmentArray.department[0].service.name  //I would think this variable would contain the value "student_checkin" since its the first sevice.  but instead its value is the department name.
                                                                    //The variable has "service.name" in it so it just seems to reason that that is what it would return.  
                                                                    //wouldn't something like "departmentArray.department[0].name" be a better choice to hold the department name?


I wasn't sure if this was something really simple to change so that's why I'm asking.  If you don't see the point in changing it then oh well.  It works anyways :D

Thanks a lot,

John
0
 
muso120999Commented:
Actually I've been thinking again, and I know now that I can make the change you request without much of a problem, whilst keeping it flexible.

I'm off out for the day now, but I'll post a solution up later for you.
0
Industry Leaders: We Want Your Opinion!

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

 
gmailrulesAuthor Commented:
ok, great.  thank you :)
0
 
muso120999Commented:
Right, sorry - my code was actually wrong as it was assigning values to the level below, when only length needs to do that...

function convertContent(obj:Object, level:Number) {
      var prop:String;
      var targetObj = new Object;
      var len:Number = 0;
      for (prop in obj) {
            if (typeof (obj[prop]) == "object") {
                  if (targetObj[_root.categoryArray[level]] == undefined) {
                        targetObj[_root.categoryArray[level]] = new Object();
                  }
                  targetObj[_root.categoryArray[level]].len = ++len;
                  targetObj[_root.categoryArray[level]][prop] = convertContent(obj[prop], level+1);
            } else {
                  targetObj[prop] = obj[prop];
            }
      }
            return targetObj;
}
//DO STUFF!!!
function result(tXML:Array) {
      _root.departmentArray = new Object();
      _root.categoryArray = new Array("department", "service", "component");
      _root.departmentArray = convertContent(tXML, 0);
        delete _root.categoryArray; // this is no longer required

      trace(departmentArray.department[1].service.len);
      for (prop in departmentArray.department[0].service[0].category[0]) {
            trace(prop);
      }
}

You will notice now that the arbitrary "values" should not be needed now (I did wonder this when I wrote it, but didn't spend the time I should have done analysing it!
0
 
gmailrulesAuthor Commented:
Exactly what I wanted.  Thanks a lot Muso!
0

Featured Post

Receive 1:1 tech help

Solve your biggest tech problems alongside global tech experts with 1:1 help.

  • 3
  • 3
Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now