On 2/23/17, 1:54 AM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
>A few comments/questions: > >What does flex-box do when it runs out of room? Doesn't it wrap to a new >row/column? Or can that be controlled? I think most folks expect >VerticalLayout to not create a new column but to keep going vertically and >be clipped or scrolled. Flexbox has a number of options. Wrapping is one of them but is not the default. It set these layouts to not wrap so you get a single column or row. I did not set overflow, but it probably should be set to hidden or auto; trying to match up what we want the SWF side - which takes much more effort/code to mimic - requires us to make a choice for default behavior. I think that using the Flexbox layout will give good results on the JS side. I deliberately didn't add more features just to see what people think of using it. It has some cool layout features and seems to solve a lot of layout problems people have had using CSS. It might not be right for all situations of course. > >On the SWF side, I am hopefully going to get buy-in to unwrap the Sprites >again. That's what the dual branch is all about. > >+1 for lighterweight (one div) Container. I thought we'd already done >something like that in one of the Item Renderers. But Panel and other >ChromContainers probably need to extend Container because people expect >it, although I'd be fine if they both just implemented some sort of >IContainer. > >As an alternative to flex-box, it is totally fine to have more than one >VerticalLayout. One that tries to use display:block and another one that >runs a bunch of code and does position:absolute on everything. > >In reality, how many of you use position:absolute or position:relative in >a real-world HTML/JS UI? It still feels like we are going to end up using >it too much, but maybe that's what has to happen in order to solve some of >the common layout issues, like making one thing stretch to fill all >available space. I agree. When you look at the generated HTML, there's way too much forcing of size and position that a natural HTML author would not use. But I'm not sure how to really do this programmatically while allowing all sorts of situations to work. > >My 2 cents, >-Alex > >On 2/22/17, 2:31 PM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>Great. Thanks. I will take a look at these tomorrow. >>‹peter >> >>On 2/22/17, 5:19 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>This too: >>>https://philipwalton.github.io/solved-by-flexbox/ >>> >>>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 12:16 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> BTW, this might be useful: >>>> https://github.com/philipwalton/flexbugs >>>><https://github.com/philipwalton/flexbugs> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 23, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com >>>>><mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> How well do these work in IE? >>>>> >>>>> It looks like Flexbox is not supported at all in IE prior to IE10 and >>>>>even in IE10 and 11, it only has buggy support.[1] >>>>> >>>>> [1]http://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox >>>>><http://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox> >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 22, 2017, at 11:40 PM, Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com >>>>>><mailto:p...@adobe.com>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I just pushed new layouts: VerticalFlexLayout and >>>>>>HorizontalFlexLayout as >>>>>> well as a change to DataBindingExample to use them. I consider these >>>>>> temporary and would like to make them be the VerticalLayout and >>>>>> HorizontalLayout in the near future. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
