I’m suggesting that we change defaults.css
from:
Application
{
padding: 0px;
margin: 0px;
}
to:
Application
{
padding: 0px;
margin: 0px;
position: relative;
}
I believe this will resolve this issue as the default would cascade down to all
sub-elements. The default would be relative, but beads would be free to change
that to whatever they want.
Of course, that would dictate that UIBase belongs in Basic and not Core… ;-)
Harbs
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> I’m not sure exactly what change you are proposing, but UIBase used to set
> position=relative on all positioners. We took that away so that the "flex"
> and other display/layout styles would not have to deal with the excess
> clutter and overhead of having set position on so many elements in the DOM.
> Via PAYG, only the elements that need to have a style.position should have it
> set.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 6/4/18, 8:44 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It just occurred to me that the problem is due to the default position
> being static.
>
> I just added position: relative; to the .Application css and that resolved
> the issue as well.
>
> I wonder if we could completely do away with the offsetParent logic in
> UIBase if we make the default position: relative. That would have a major
> positive impact on performance.
>
> Thoughts?
> Harbs
>
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 6:36 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Yishay,
>>
>> IMO, the new fix is better. And you took the right approach by examining
>> the code flow in the debugger. When layout fails for what appears to be a
>> timing issue (in this case, offsetParent not set), we definitely want to
>> take the time to carefully analyze why there is a timing issue instead of
>> apply code to work around the current lifecycle.
>>
>> I'm not sure we can recommend a general pattern for layouts. I think there
>> is some PAYG involved. It could be that in some cases the View should be
>> responsible for setting style.position. Then the layouts don't have to
>> spend the time verifying style.position. In other cases the layouts could
>> be used in places where other potential layouts don't rely on style.position
>> being a particular value. I think BasicLayout for Containers is an example.
>>
>> The code you used could be put into a utility function for layouts to use to
>> guarantee that x,y will work as expected.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 6/4/18, 8:22 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Looking at it some more it has nothing to do with data binding. I pushed a
>> different fix (799f1878250d8c69347f08442c2c333740efdb8d) that changes the
>> layout itself. Here it's assumed the offsetParent is explicitly set before
>> children's x and y are set. Should this be a general pattern?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from:
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb3fbf0fe3aef48f404ce08d5ca2f0006%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636637225574936981&sdata=tQL6czkhz6TGNfiVuLzM8BpNPd%2BudGur3FGTGyZUJew%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
>
>
