Any other selector should disable that one because that’s about as unspecific
as you can get and the higher level of specificity always wins.
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
