I wasn't really too sure about the resize thing either with getBBox which sometimes wasn't returning any value. That is a mystery a bit to me, too, but I got it to work. I think if you have a complete picture of what you want (API-wise), then I can adapt and redo things. Basically, DecrementButtonView wants to have a downward arrowhead in a box, however that's achieved.
—peter On 7/26/16, 5:10 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >Well, the whole drawRect() method seemed redundant to me along with the >need to specify the width and height. I tried to remove it and move the >logic to the draw() method (sans the width and height, and I ran into the >following code in DecrementButtonView: >_backRect.drawRect(0, 0, >host.width, host.height); I was assuming that there’s a reason the host >width and height is being specified instead of the _backRect ones. > >I also have no idea what this was about: resize(x, y, _rect['getBBox']()); > >If this can all be simplified, I’d be happy to do so, but I thought >there’s things going on here that I don’t completely understand. > >I’m not understanding why a Rect needs to wrap the svg. Why can’t it just >be a pure rect element and be required to be added to an svg or g element? > >On Jul 26, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> I actually just followed some examples from Om. We have our element as >>the >> root of a component which would be the <svg>. This is positioned and so >> anything drawn in it would start a (0,0). So to me, this makes sense for >> how it is being done at the moment. >> >> ‹peter >> >> On 7/26/16, 3:52 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Internally, it¹s always setting it to 0,0. It looks to me like some >>> renderers might be doing some relative positioning, but I did not study >>> them well enough to figure it out. >>> >>> I think it was in charts, so Peter should probably have a better idea. >>> >>> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/26/16, 11:47 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I agree there should be a Group object. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that the way the classes are currently constructed is >>>>> that >>>>> 100 pixel ³Rect" positioned at 100,100 actually contains the >>>>>following >>>>> markup: <svg x=³100² y=³100"><rect x=³0² y=³0² width=³100² >>>>> height=³100²/></svg> >>>> >>>> Are you saying that code is doing relative positioning re-calculation? >>>> I >>>> would wonder why it does that. Otherwise, a more straightforward >>>> mapping >>>> would make sense. >>>> >>>> -Alex >>>> >>> >> >
