> So, if we don't force position!=static throughout the DOM, then you have to > have code that compensates for that difference.
I don’t think I agree. Right now we’re modifying the x and y values because we *might* care about the offsetParent. That’s not PAYG. In fact, the set values will be *wrong* if the position of the parent is changed after the x and y values of the child are set. Based on my observations, most apps will not need to set the values based on the offsetParent, so hard-wiring that code in is not PAYG. This is especially true since setting x and y currently forces a reflow of HTML. We’re suffering a major performance hit for no reason. In cases where we care about the parentOffset, we can use observedX and observedY utility methods which account for offsetParent. That seems much more PAYG to me. Removing the assumptions of reliance on offsetParent seems to eliminate all needs to care about parent positioning. My $0.02, Harbs > On Jun 7, 2018, at 8:23 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > IIRC, the parentNode is always the parent of the child if you examine the > DOM. offsetParent is the parent or grandparent, etc, that has position != > static, and left/top/right/bottom styles are always relative to offsetParent. > So, if we don't force position!=static throughout the DOM, then you have to > have code that compensates for that difference. > > IMO, the key issue is whether it is "ok" to force position!=static throughout > the DOM. Can someone look at other JS frameworks? I'll bet most of them use > border-box like we do. If the major JS frameworks have opted for > position!=static, then it might be the right thing for us to do as well. > IMO, we would like to make it easy for snippets found on the internet to work > in Royale and they may not all presume position!-static. > > Also, IMO, our Containers should not presume position!=static. Containers > accept assignable Layouts and the Layouts can set position!=static on the > children and be appropriately named (VerticalLayoutWithXYSupport). That's > PAYG to me. Remember that TLCs should have very little assumptions as > illustrated in the ExplodedComponent example. The beads can make assumptions > and be appropriately named and documented. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 6/7/18, 6:15 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com > <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > I created a “simplify-position” feature branch which does away with the > offsetParent logic in UIBase. It does not change anything regarding position: > static. > > I have tested with my own app and a number of the examples. I haven’t > found any problems yet. > > Input welcome… > > Harbs > >> On Jun 7, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> So, IMO, it would be nice to do a similar investigation of controlsPallette. >> >> You are right. Removing the y value has no effect. >> >> I am wondering that maybe it makes sense to apply relative to the Container >> CSS selector and possibly a few others. >> >> I’m trying to understand the specific cases where: >> if (positioner.parentNode != positioner.offsetParent) >> >> Is required in setX, get x and setY, get y in UIBase. I would *really* like >> to get rid of that code, and I’m, wondering what doing so would cause. >> >>> On Jun 7, 2018, at 12:36 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID >>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID >>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>>> wrote: >>> >>> In the case of the controlsPallette, how did it get its size? I could >>> certainly understand that if you didn't have position!=static, that setting >>> top on the dockAndOuterContainer would have no effect, but you shouldn't >>> have had to set y or top in the first place. IIRC, you couldn't use x,y in >>> Flex layouts like VerticalLayout/HorizontalLayout so migrating code >>> shouldn't be using it. It is fine to create other layouts that support x,y >>> as exceptions. >>> >>> In general, for a framework, we want to make sure we understand and fix the >>> fundamental problem before we address any hacks/exceptions. IMO, the >>> fundamental problem in the scenarios you've provided so far is that the >>> layout did not do what was expected so someone tried using x,y to fix it. >>> First we need that layout do what is expected, then worry about how folks >>> might resolve other issues, if any. >>> >>> In ProductsView in RoyaleStore, the grip is an image loaded later, so there >>> might have been an issue there, especially on the SWF side, but I would >>> expect the browser to automatically re-layout once the grip image loaded. >>> I dug through Git history and found that I was the one who hacked in the >>> x,y. It could be that early on, the layout did not use FlexBox so we had a >>> similar problem of responding to the grip image loading late. But we >>> should remove the x,y and see if there is still a problem and ponder the >>> right fix for that. ProductsView should not need to be setting x,y. >>> >>> So, IMO, it would be nice to do a similar investigation of >>> controlsPallette. IMO, if you examine that div, it's offsetHeight should >>> be 40 and if it is then you shouldn't need to set style.top=40 on >>> docAndOuterContainer which means that it shouldn't matter what >>> style.position is. >>> >>> My 2 cents, >>> -Alex >>> >>> On 6/6/18, 2:12 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2018, at 11:05 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com >>>> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> <js:Label x="20" y="20" >>>> text="{locStr.UPLOAD_YOUR_IMAGE}"/> >>>> >>> >>> It actually, looks like the x and y values no longer have an effect on >>> this particular component, but there was clearly a reason they were needed >>> to be specified at some point… >>> >>> Another one. I have an image which needs to stick to the bottom right of >>> the app. To do that I needed to following: >>> >>> top: calc(100% - 21px); >>> left: calc(100% - 187px); >>> position: fixed; >>> >>> With a default of position: relative, I’m able to do this: >>> >>> top: -21px; >>> float: right; >>> right: 10px; >>> >>> This being said, it actually looks like I’m wrong about the way to set >>> the defaults being .Application *{}. This actually has a *higher* >>> specificity than .foo{}.[1] >>> >>> I think the only way to guarantee that it’ll have a lower specificity >>> than other selectors is to use: >>> >>> *{ >>> position: relative; >>> } >>> >>> I’m less happy about this option than ."Application *” because it’ll >>> effect elements outside the Royale app if it’s not in an iframe. >>> >>> Harbs >>> >>> >>> [1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0> >>> >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0>> >>> >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0> >>> >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0 >>> >>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0>>>
