[flexcoders] Re: f2b3: initial layout bug

2006-06-15 Thread Tim Hoff
Not sure without seeing it, but you could try changing to layout=vertical. Also, you're buttons and grid add up to 105% height. -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using the following code, the initial load of the app shows a little dead area to the right

[flexcoders] Re: f2b3: initial layout bug

2006-06-15 Thread Jason
Sorry, change that grid height to 90%. Still the same bug, but at least it all adds to 100% now! It seems that any % other than 100% for the application height causes this. Absolute numbers work, too. I wonder, should I even specifying app height/width? It seems if I leave this off it assumes

[flexcoders] Re: f2b3: initial layout bug

2006-06-15 Thread Tim Hoff
Here's a work-around: mx:Application xmlns:mx=http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml; layout=vertical width=100% height=50% backgroundColor=0xFF paddingBottom=0 paddingTop=0 paddingLeft=-8 paddingRight=-8 Pretty ugly though, -TH --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

[flexcoders] Re: f2b3: initial layout bug

2006-06-15 Thread Tim Hoff
Sorry Jason, That was an ugly work-around. This works better: mx:Application xmlns:mx="http://www.adobe.com/2006/mxml"layout="absolute" height="50%" backgroundColor="0xFF"mx:VBox height="100%" width="{Application.application.width}"backgroundColor="0x00FF00" -TH--- In

Re: [flexcoders] Re: f2b3: initial layout bug

2006-06-15 Thread Michael Schmalle
Hi, FYI THe problem you are having is from the verticalScroll bar being taken into the startup measuremnts. Not that I have a solution but, add this; verticalScrollPolicy=off And you will see it work fine with the code you are using. Peace, MikeOn 6/15/06, Tim Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[flexcoders] Re: f2b3: initial layout bug

2006-06-15 Thread Jason
Thanks for the effort, but it seems if I just don't try sticking height/width on Application, things work fine. Still don't know what to make of that... --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, Tim Hoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry Jason, That was an ugly work-around. This works better: