I don't think I understand the answer. Are you saying that what we are
suggesting is wrong conceptually or hard to implement or ...?
Steve
On 11/07/2013 1:23 PM, Martin Sladecek wrote:
No, I will change the dirty roots to dirty flags on every node. With
them, it's possible to use it the way you suggest (applyCSS & layout
on nearest layout root), but it's much more convenient if we could
identify the layout root of the subtree and apply the layout from
there downwards. I think it's something most of the usecases would
want (SB, snapshot) but it's not that simple to identify layout root
(we have private flag for that in every Node, so internally it's just
one boolean check).
-Martin
On 07/11/2013 05:15 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
This might work for CSS, but won't for layout. The second example
won't work because you'd just do layout of the node itself. It
might get a different size from it's parent during the next layout
pass (and the parent from it's parent, etc...). So the layout will
look different after the next pulse. This is why we need more than
layout() call and it's not just about adding the CSS.
If I understand properly this would be the correct behavior. If I
ask a subtree of nodes to layout after setting the size of the
subtree root, then go farther up the tree to an ancestor, ensure the
ancestor has a size and layout again, the original subtree might be
layed out differently and I would expect that. If I need to take a
snapshot of a child and it has to be in context of the entire tree,
I do CC in the root, force layout in the root and then take a
snapshot of the child.
That was what I was thinking as well, I don't understand why we have
to do more than provide a way to apply CSS in order to satisfy all
the use cases? Note that the old implementation (with lists of dirty
roots on the Scene, or is this still the way we do it?) might be
problematic here, I don't know, but from an API point of view, it
seems like this is exactly what you want.
Richard
