This sounds scary to me because it affects the entire DOM, and not very PAYG.
Maybe Carlos should try it on his Jewel layouts and see if anything breaks.
Some other implementation options would be to:
-Have the x,y setters set position on the parent. I think we used to do this
and decided to not do it anymore
-Have the x,y setters add a class selector to the parent.
-Have a bead, like we've discussed for UnselectableElement, that brings in the
selector.
-Have the layouts that allow for absolute positioning set the right styles or
selector on the parent.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/5/18, 11:44 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI, I applied this change to my PrintUI app and it seems like we had
applied quite a few ugly work-arounds to get things to be positioned correctly.
We did not realize at the time that it was due to the default being position:
static. Switching the default to position: relative simplifies element
positioning a lot, and enables us to get rid of a lot of positional overrides
to make things stay where they should.
If there’s no objections, I’ll apply this change. It might require some
changes to client apps, but this is mostly to remove work-arounds that
shouldn’t have been required in the first place and I think it’s worth-while.
The change will also enable us to get rid of forced reflow when setting x
and y values to UIBase which is a major performance sore-spot.
Harbs
> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
