FYI, I applied this change to my PrintUI app and it seems like we had applied
quite a few ugly work-arounds to get things to be positioned correctly. We did
not realize at the time that it was due to the default being position: static.
Switching the default to position: relative simplifies element positioning a
lot, and enables us to get rid of a lot of positional overrides to make things
stay where they should.
If there’s no objections, I’ll apply this change. It might require some changes
to client apps, but this is mostly to remove work-arounds that shouldn’t have
been required in the first place and I think it’s worth-while.
The change will also enable us to get rid of forced reflow when setting x and y
values to UIBase which is a major performance sore-spot.
Harbs
> On Jun 5, 2018, at 8:00 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Ah, ok. How would a user disable that selector in case it did something
> undesirable?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 6/4/18, 1:56 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry I was a bit confused. The selector that works is:
>
> .Application * {
> position: relative;
> }
>
>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 11:32 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes. But it cascades down.
>>
>> I manually made this change to the TreeExample project, and it fixed the bug.
>>
>>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:22 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm still not understanding. Style.position is not inheriting so how would
>>> it cascade down? Isn't .Application only applied to the <body/>?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 6/4/18, 9:15 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I’m suggesting that we change defaults.css
>>>
>>> from:
>>> Application
>>> {
>>> padding: 0px;
>>> margin: 0px;
>>> }
>>>
>>> to:
>>> Application
>>> {
>>> padding: 0px;
>>> margin: 0px;
>>> position: relative;
>>> }
>>>
>>> I believe this will resolve this issue as the default would cascade down
>>> to all sub-elements. The default would be relative, but beads would be free
>>> to change that to whatever they want.
>>>
>>> Of course, that would dictate that UIBase belongs in Basic and not Core…
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>> Harbs
>>>
>>>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 7:10 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure exactly what change you are proposing, but UIBase used to set
>>>> position=relative on all positioners. We took that away so that the
>>>> "flex" and other display/layout styles would not have to deal with the
>>>> excess clutter and overhead of having set position on so many elements in
>>>> the DOM. Via PAYG, only the elements that need to have a style.position
>>>> should have it set.
>>>>
>>>> My 2 cents,
>>>> -Alex
>>>>
>>>> On 6/4/18, 8:44 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It just occurred to me that the problem is due to the default position
>>>> being static.
>>>>
>>>> I just added position: relative; to the .Application css and that resolved
>>>> the issue as well.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if we could completely do away with the offsetParent logic in
>>>> UIBase if we make the default position: relative. That would have a major
>>>> positive impact on performance.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Harbs
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 4, 2018, at 6:36 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Yishay,
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the new fix is better. And you took the right approach by examining
>>>>> the code flow in the debugger. When layout fails for what appears to be
>>>>> a timing issue (in this case, offsetParent not set), we definitely want
>>>>> to take the time to carefully analyze why there is a timing issue instead
>>>>> of apply code to work around the current lifecycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure we can recommend a general pattern for layouts. I think
>>>>> there is some PAYG involved. It could be that in some cases the View
>>>>> should be responsible for setting style.position. Then the layouts don't
>>>>> have to spend the time verifying style.position. In other cases the
>>>>> layouts could be used in places where other potential layouts don't rely
>>>>> on style.position being a particular value. I think BasicLayout for
>>>>> Containers is an example.
>>>>>
>>>>> The code you used could be put into a utility function for layouts to use
>>>>> to guarantee that x,y will work as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Alex
>>>>>
>>>>> On 6/4/18, 8:22 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at it some more it has nothing to do with data binding. I pushed a
>>>>> different fix (799f1878250d8c69347f08442c2c333740efdb8d) that changes the
>>>>> layout itself. Here it's assumed the offsetParent is explicitly set before
>>>>> children's x and y are set. Should this be a general pattern?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sent from:
>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-royale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cb3fbf0fe3aef48f404ce08d5ca2f0006%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636637225574936981&sdata=tQL6czkhz6TGNfiVuLzM8BpNPd%2BudGur3FGTGyZUJew%3D&reserved=0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
