Interesting. I didn't know about CSS visibility. It might be better to have
UIBase "visible" getter/setter affect CSS visibility instead of display:none.
I think it would save some code in UIBase and give us the same effect in both
Flash and browser. IncludeInLayout could be implemented as a bead and affect
display:none. I wonder how many people truly need to exclude elements from the
layout. IMO, the IncludeInLayout property was abused in Flex to simulate
navigators with deferred instantiation and resulted in tons of performance
issues.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 4/7/19, 5:50 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
@Harbs,
in the following video,
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FApacheRoyale%2Fstatus%2F1115026909363093511&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=WuElzaDSOomx1jPyQqoV0lhk0zXGtqiT5ftbmZVColA%3D&reserved=0
buttons are using visibility css property instead of display css property
change. If I use display, the changes in content width will make the slide
effect look worse. So this is a special case.
just to show you a concrete visual case
thanks
El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:41, Carlos Rovira (<carlosrov...@apache.org>)
escribió:
> Right, I prefer the actual "visible", just saying that I found a case
> where I need just make the artifact invisible, while it maintains the
space
> occupied
>
> Maybe this is 1% of cases, but I think we need a bead just to handle
> "visibility" css property in Royale from AS3. I don't think this should
> mimic flex since we end always setting two properties each time what was
> cumbersome.
>
> El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:02, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> includeInLayout actually removes the object from the structure when not
>> included.
>>
>> I guess theoretically this can mean a simpler structure, but to me
>> visible is better because:
>>
>> 1. There’s less overhead on adding and removing.
>> 2. With includeInLayout there’s more chance of getting RTEs when the
>> element does not exist, while with visible, it exists even when not
>> computed for layout.
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
>> >
>> > visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it
>> changes
>> > "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
>> > if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object
>> > disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex
>> > will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
>> > if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the
>> > object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute
>> in
>> > layout,
>> > so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
>> > This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
>> >
>> > in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not
>> visible
>> > but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen)
>> > so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true
>> > always.
>> >
>> > I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard
>> I'm
>> > adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the
>> space
>> > but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think
this
>> > will be useful for others.
>> >
>> > Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has
>> no
>> > sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
>> >
>> > @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
>> > Disable/Enable is for visibility?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>)
>> escribió:
>> >
>> >> Why not just use “visible”?
>> >>
>> >>> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property
>> (with
>> >>> visible/hidden)
>> >>>
>> >>> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as
a
>> >> bead
>> >>> if there's no other proposal.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Carlos Rovira
>> >>>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Carlos Rovira
>> >
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
