Ah, ok. How would a user disable that selector in case it did something
undesirable?
-Alex
On 6/4/18, 1:56 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry I was a bit confused. The selector that works is:
.Application * {
position: relative;
}
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:32 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yes. But it cascades down.
>
> I manually made this change to the TreeExample project, and it fixed the
bug.
>
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> I'm still not understanding. Style.position is not inheriting so how
would it cascade down? Isn't .Application only applied to the <body/>?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 6/4/18, 9:15 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
