maybe create an universal mapping with reification? It will be less performant, but will also make the binding more uniform-looking.

textProperty().mapObservable<Int>{it?.split(" ")?.size ?: 0}

or in this case

textProperty().mapObservable{ it?.split(" ")?.size ?: 0 }

oh I like that approach

Maybe call it

binding

instead of

mapObservable

or maybe just map?

I think calling the new function

binding

falls more inline with the other extension functions that create bindings from Observables.

stringBinding

,

integerBinding

,

doubleBinding

and then

binding

.

although its possible, it can in some cases look less beautifull. The problem is that you need a common interface. This interface can be a class with a generic: Binding<T> or a generic itself R : Binding<T> In the case of the generic itself, you need three generics in the funciton, (the original type, the new type and the BindingType) I think making two functions will do, but I don't know if it's a smart idea... (of course, the compiler will do most of the generics-work, but if you need to fill in one of the generics, you need to fill in all.

inline fun <reified T, reified R, reified S : Binding<R>> ObservableValue<T>.fun1(vararg dependencies: Observable, noinline op: (T?) -> R) 
        = fun2(*dependencies, op = op)

inline fun <reified T, reified R> ObservableValue<T>.fun2(vararg dependencies: Observable, crossinline op: (T?) -> R) = when (R::class) {
    String::class -> stringBinding(*dependencies) { it: T? -> op(it) as String? }
    Double::class -> doubleBinding(*dependencies) { it: T? -> op(it) as Double }
    Float::class -> floatBinding(*dependencies) { it: T? -> op(it) as Float }
    Long::class -> longBinding(*dependencies) { it: T? -> op(it) as Long }
    Int::class -> integerBinding(*dependencies) { it: T? -> op(it) as Int }
    Boolean::class -> booleanBinding(*dependencies) { it: T? -> op(it) as Boolean }
    else -> objectBinding(*dependencies) { it: T? -> op(it) }
} as Binding<R>

@edvin moving to 1.7.17-SNAPSHOT now it cannot find the json objects :``` override fun toJSON(json: JsonBuilder) { with(json) { add("name", name) add("dropAllowed", dropAllowed) add("children", children.toJSON()) add("photolist", photolist.toJSON()) } } override fun updateModel(json: JsonObject) { with(json) { name = json.getString("name") dropAllowed = json.getBoolean("dropAllowed") children.setAll(json.getJsonArray("children")?.toModel() ?: emptyList<PhotoCategory>()) photolist.setAll(json.getJsonArray("photolist")?.toModel() ?: emptyList<Photo>()) } } ```

How to add onClick event for text? setOnMouseClicked for text not working.

@carlw thx!

Missed enableWhen on parent))

Can I set state selected for Node to use default style selector? Or need to use toggleClass and custom classes?

@iLobanov it's really up to you how you'd like to have it done. It depends on your use case as well (i.e, css classes do allow the option for a

hover

function, I'd be willing to try and see if there's something for

focus

or

select

, but I haven't tested it out yet

@iLobanov are you doing something different than the selected pseudo class class that already exists?

that's present for checkbox, checkmenuitem, togglebutton, cell, buttonbase

I'm want do make grid pane with custom cells. Where each cell can be selected and childs inside. And depending on wich items are selected other cells allow/dissabled for selection)

@carlw @amanda.hinchman-dominguez thx for answers) Here example of what I'm want. @carlw not different but how to dynamicaly change cells selected/disabled state

Does TreeView support binding root property? I have it like this:

class MyView() : View() {
    private val rootProperty = modelProperty.objectBinding {
        TreeItem(it as MyItem?)
    }

    override val root = vbox {
        addClass(Styles.wrapper)
        treeview<MyItem> {
            rootProperty().bind(rootProperty)
            cellFormat { text = it.toString() }
            populate {
                val value = it.value
                when (value) {
                    is ContainerItem -> value.children
                    else -> emptyList()
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

First time it binds just fine, but when

otherProperty

changes (through couple of other bindings), root node changes, but children are not populated. It just displays root node without expansion button and no children visible.

@orangy i was working on a blog post on this. you can bind root property. and have a lefthand listview drive a righthand treeview for example

i was experimenting with packing TreeItems in one control to bind to the other and having the populate() method ready-to-go

So what am I doing wrong? 🙂

you're linking two trees?

Nope, as I said earlier, I have a textarea, I process when it changes (through bindings), and build a tree out of it

sorry. your messages from yesterday scrolled off

val scriptProperty = SimpleStringProperty()
val evalProperty = scriptProperty.objectBinding { evalScript(it!!)}
modelProperty = evalProperty.objectBinding { makeModel(it) }

Text area is bound to

scriptProperty

(btw, how do I bind it unidirectonally from text to scriptProperty?)

textProperty().bindBidirectional(scriptProperty)

and then I bind

modelProperty

to a tree as above

got it. like the structure window and text editor in intellij?

Yep, similar

Indeed, an AST in a tree view next to a text would be a good example of what I need