I have tried to do that - doesn't working for me :( Animation is running always without last cell. I think so: In first case there is a '0' at the end of position values. Without your algorithm all 100 animations is running, than without last ( and there is no '0' at the end ). With you alhorithm animation will start before position will be a '0' for the third time, because _visited[0] will be true; I think there is some regularity here.
And one more thing... I would like to start animations in some other function. Than it's working fine. For example in onCreate method in the my grid click listener: after mGameGrid.setAdapter(mAdapter). But I need to set timer in 200, or 500 ms for waiting for getView finish its work ( but even so, it's not always make it in time and I see only half or 2/3 of all animations running). If I call start animation after setAdapter without timer - it's doesn't work. Why animation is working fine in that case, but don't working if I run it in getView method, even with your algorithm? On 28 апр, 16:55, Streets Of Boston <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't rely on the order in which getView is called. It is not a bug. > It is a decision of the design of the grid/list view not to be > dependent on the order in which getView is called. Why getView with > position '0' is called three times... i don't know. *If* this is a > bug, it is only a peformance issue. Maybe it has to do with lay-out > issues (layout 'weights' are used)? Just don't rely on the order. > > However, maybe you can do this instead. Below is code that does not > rely on the number of times getView is called nor the order in which > it is called: > > You know that you have 100 cells. Make an array of 100 booleans as an > instance variable of your adapter or activity (e.g. boolean[] _visited > = new boolean[100]). Initially, set every element in this array to > false. When getView is called with a value of position, do this inside > of your getView method: > > ... > ... > _visited[position] = true; > boolean allCellsAreShown = true; > for (int i = 0; i < _visited.length; i++) { > if (!_visited[i]) { > allCellsAreShown = false; > break; > } > } > if (allCellsAreShown) { > ... // start your animation. > } > ... > ... > > (you could optimize the above code a bit... but i think you'd get the > idea :=) ). > > On Apr 28, 9:43 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I have exactly same problem. Why do we have 102 values of position > > when there is only 100 cells displayed on screen? > > "position is changed like: 0, 0, 1, 2, 3... 99, 0" - what is the cause > > of that? Can someone from google team answer? > > That seems to be a bug, very annoying bug. Answer "It's not a bug" is > > not answer! How do you generate position? > > > On Apr 27, 9:40 pm, Illidane <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > There is a way to make GridView without Adapter ( e.g. something > > > like .addView() method ) ? > > > > On 27 апр, 21:38, Illidane <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > My GridView shows all 100 cells on the screen ( all visible at one > > > > moment ) > > > > and all the animation works fine, and pretty fast ( on all 100 > > > > elements ), > > > > but than begin problems with last cell. > > > > Animation not child-view's. Each cell is a imageView with animation on > > > > it. > > > > > On 27 апр, 20:43, Streets Of Boston <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > It's not buggy. I use the adapters and grid/list-views in my apps and > > > > > they work fine. I think they are not designed for your purpose. > > > > > > e.g. If your adapter has 100 elements and the grid/list-view only > > > > > shows about 15 at a time on the screen, the getView is called about 15 > > > > > times. Sometimes more times, depending whether a little bit (a few > > > > > pixels) of the top or bottom child-view become visible or not. Then, > > > > > when you start scrolling, getView gets called again and again when > > > > > child-views become visible and others become invisible. > > > > > > Also, seriously consider re-using the convertView for your grid- or > > > > > list-view. My experience is that it can really slow down your app if > > > > > you just return new View instances for each child-view/cell: > > > > > public ... getView(....) { > > > > > View view = convertView != null ? convertView : createNewView(...); > > > > > ... > > > > > ... > > > > > return view; > > > > > > } > > > > > > The implementation of the adapter+listviews does not need to rely on > > > > > the order in which the getView is called. As long as it is called for > > > > > every child-view that becomes visible. > > > > > > Isn't is possible to start a child-view's (cell's) animation when you > > > > > handle it the getView(...) method? > > > > > > If you really want at least 100 child-views/cells to be created (i > > > > > won't recommend it... it's a LOT), you can override the Adapter's > > > > > getViewTypeCount() and getItemViewType(int pos). Even with this, I'm > > > > > still not sure if getView would get called in the order you want. > > > > > > ... > > > > > private static int EXPECTED_CELL_COUNT = 100; > > > > > > public int getViewTypeCount() { return EXPECTED_CELL_COUNT; } > > > > > public int getItemViewType(int pos) { return pos % > > > > > EXPECTED_CELL_COUNT; } > > > > > > On Apr 27, 1:07 pm, Illidane <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > And you think it's not a bug? where is guarantee that it will work > > > > > > in > > > > > > general? > > > > > > Where adapter takes it's magic number N? > > > > > > > On 27 апр, 19:56, Romain Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > There is no guarantee it's going to be called N times either. > > > > > > > > 2009/4/27 Illidane <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > Even with convertView problem is still same - last cell is not > > > > > > > > animating. > > > > > > > > And... you said WHEN getView()... I think it's no matter, > > > > > > > > matter HOW > > > > > > > > MANY times getView() called. > > > > > > > > It calls more than 100 times, whats very strange. > > > > > > > > For the first time it's called 102 times and all animations was > > > > > > > > working. For the second and next times it was 101, and last > > > > > > > > animation > > > > > > > > was static. > > > > > > > > I think where is some bug regularity... > > > > > > > > > On 27 апр, 19:31, Romain Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> You should ALWAYS reuse the convertView, oherwise you're gonna > > > > > > > >> eat up > > > > > > > >> memory and just slow down your app. And like I said, there is > > > > > > > >> no > > > > > > > >> guarantee on how and when getView() is called so you cannot > > > > > > > >> rely on it > > > > > > > >> with your anim counter. > > > > > > > > >> 2009/4/27 Illidane <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > >> > I dont use convertView parametr and return new child-view. > > > > > > > > >> > Each cell has an animation. In the getView I generate an > > > > > > > >> > array of > > > > > > > >> > animations, wich I start when the adapter stops his work ( > > > > > > > >> > e.g. when > > > > > > > >> > my mAnimCounter == 102 ( but need be max 100, lol ) When I > > > > > > > >> > run app, > > > > > > > >> > all 100 cells are animated. But when I re-check the field as > > > > > > > >> > I need > > > > > > > >> > and call mGameGrid.setAdapter(mAdapter), new animations > > > > > > > >> > working, but > > > > > > > >> > last. Last cell are NOT animated. Problem can be only in > > > > > > > >> > getView and > > > > > > > >> > method how it works. I very doubt that it's not a bug of > > > > > > > >> > GridView or > > > > > > > >> > Adapter. > > > > > > > > >> > On 27 апр, 18:59, Streets Of Boston > > > > > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> >> The child/item-views in list-views and grid-views are > > > > > > > >> >> re-used > > > > > > > >> >> (convertView input parameter). I suspect that depending on > > > > > > > >> >> the layout/ > > > > > > > >> >> measurements/visibility of the child-views and the way you > > > > > > > >> >> implement > > > > > > > >> >> getView (re-using convertView or ignoring it and returning > > > > > > > >> >> a brand-new > > > > > > > >> >> child-view every time), the order in which these > > > > > > > >> >> child-views are > > > > > > > >> >> called (value of 'position' parameter in the getView > > > > > > > >> >> method) can be > > > > > > > >> >> random. > > > > > > > > >> >> On Apr 27, 11:30 am, Illidane <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > Why number of getView calls is different?? > > > > > > > >> >> > One time it's 102 ( but need to be 100 ) and the second > > > > > > > >> >> > and greater is > > > > > > > >> >> > 101. > > > > > > > > >> >> > On 27 апр, 18:15, Romain Guy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > It's not a bug. There's no guarantee in the order of > > > > > > > >> >> > > the calls wrt to > > > > > > > >> >> > > the position value. It also depends on how the GridView > > > > > > > >> >> > > is > > > > > > > >> >> > > measured/laid out. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 6:38 AM, Illidane > > > > > > > >> >> > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > Hi, > > > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm using GridView in my app, and myAdapter ( extends > > > > > > > >> >> > > > BaseAdapter) for > > > > > > > >> >> > > > it. I have overrited method getView(int position, > > > > > > > >> >> > > > View convertView, > > > > > > > >> >> > > > ViewGroup parent) of Adapter and 100 cells in > > > > > > > >> >> > > > GridView. > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > If I set logger: > > > > > > > >> >> > > > android.util.Log.w("bla", (new StringBuilder()).append > > > > > > > >> >> > > > (position).toString()); where is in the getView then > > > > > > > >> >> > > > I'll see that > > > > > > > >> >> > > > position is changed like: 0, 0, 1, 2, 3... 99, 0. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > -WTF? ( thats for > > > > > > > >> >> > > > the first time) and then I call > > > > > > > >> >> > > > mGameGrid.setAdapter(mAdapter) and > > > > > > > >> >> > > > position is going: 0, 0, 1, 2, 3...99. > > > > > > > >> >> > > > I think it's a bug of BaseAdapter, isn't it? > > > > > > > > >> >> > > -- > > > > > > > >> >> > > Romain Guy > > > > > > > >> >> > > Android framework engineer > > > > > > > >> >> > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > >> >> > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I > > > > > > > >> >> > > don't have time > > > > > > > >> >> > > to provide private support. All such questions should > > > > > > > >> >> > > be posted on > > > > > > > >> >> > > public forums, where I and others can see and answer > > > > > > > >> >> > > them- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > >> Romain Guy > > > > > > > >> Android framework engineer > > > > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > > > > > >> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't > > > > > > > >> have time > > > > > > > >> to provide private support. All such questions should be > > > > > > > >> posted on > > > > > > > >> public forums, where I and others can see and answer them > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > Romain Guy > > > > > > > Android framework engineer > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > to provide private support. All such questions should be posted > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > public forums, where I and others can see and answer them- Hide > > > > > > > quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
