IIRC, the parentNode is always the parent of the child if you examine the DOM.
offsetParent is the parent or grandparent, etc, that has position != static,
and left/top/right/bottom styles are always relative to offsetParent. So, if
we don't force position!=static throughout the DOM, then you have to have code
that compensates for that difference.
IMO, the key issue is whether it is "ok" to force position!=static throughout
the DOM. Can someone look at other JS frameworks? I'll bet most of them use
border-box like we do. If the major JS frameworks have opted for
position!=static, then it might be the right thing for us to do as well. IMO,
we would like to make it easy for snippets found on the internet to work in
Royale and they may not all presume position!-static.
Also, IMO, our Containers should not presume position!=static. Containers
accept assignable Layouts and the Layouts can set position!=static on the
children and be appropriately named (VerticalLayoutWithXYSupport). That's PAYG
to me. Remember that TLCs should have very little assumptions as illustrated
in the ExplodedComponent example. The beads can make assumptions and be
appropriately named and documented.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/7/18, 6:15 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
I created a “simplify-position” feature branch which does away with the
offsetParent logic in UIBase. It does not change anything regarding position:
static.
I have tested with my own app and a number of the examples. I haven’t found
any problems yet.
Input welcome…
Harbs
> On Jun 7, 2018, at 12:20 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So, IMO, it would be nice to do a similar investigation of
controlsPallette.
>
> You are right. Removing the y value has no effect.
>
> I am wondering that maybe it makes sense to apply relative to the
Container CSS selector and possibly a few others.
>
> I’m trying to understand the specific cases where:
> if (positioner.parentNode != positioner.offsetParent)
>
> Is required in setX, get x and setY, get y in UIBase. I would *really*
like to get rid of that code, and I’m, wondering what doing so would cause.
>
>> On Jun 7, 2018, at 12:36 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID
<mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
>>
>> In the case of the controlsPallette, how did it get its size? I could
certainly understand that if you didn't have position!=static, that setting top
on the dockAndOuterContainer would have no effect, but you shouldn't have had
to set y or top in the first place. IIRC, you couldn't use x,y in Flex layouts
like VerticalLayout/HorizontalLayout so migrating code shouldn't be using it.
It is fine to create other layouts that support x,y as exceptions.
>>
>> In general, for a framework, we want to make sure we understand and fix
the fundamental problem before we address any hacks/exceptions. IMO, the
fundamental problem in the scenarios you've provided so far is that the layout
did not do what was expected so someone tried using x,y to fix it. First we
need that layout do what is expected, then worry about how folks might resolve
other issues, if any.
>>
>> In ProductsView in RoyaleStore, the grip is an image loaded later, so
there might have been an issue there, especially on the SWF side, but I would
expect the browser to automatically re-layout once the grip image loaded. I
dug through Git history and found that I was the one who hacked in the x,y. It
could be that early on, the layout did not use FlexBox so we had a similar
problem of responding to the grip image loading late. But we should remove the
x,y and see if there is still a problem and ponder the right fix for that.
ProductsView should not need to be setting x,y.
>>
>> So, IMO, it would be nice to do a similar investigation of
controlsPallette. IMO, if you examine that div, it's offsetHeight should be 40
and if it is then you shouldn't need to set style.top=40 on
docAndOuterContainer which means that it shouldn't matter what style.position
is.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 6/6/18, 2:12 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com
<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2018, at 11:05 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com
<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <js:Label x="20" y="20"
>>> text="{locStr.UPLOAD_YOUR_IMAGE}"/>
>>>
>>
>> It actually, looks like the x and y values no longer have an effect
on this particular component, but there was clearly a reason they were needed
to be specified at some point…
>>
>> Another one. I have an image which needs to stick to the bottom right
of the app. To do that I needed to following:
>>
>> top: calc(100% - 21px);
>> left: calc(100% - 187px);
>> position: fixed;
>>
>> With a default of position: relative, I’m able to do this:
>>
>> top: -21px;
>> float: right;
>> right: 10px;
>>
>> This being said, it actually looks like I’m wrong about the way to
set the defaults being .Application *{}. This actually has a *higher*
specificity than .foo{}.[1]
>>
>> I think the only way to guarantee that it’ll have a lower specificity
than other selectors is to use:
>>
>> *{
>> position: relative;
>> }
>>
>> I’m less happy about this option than ."Application *” because it’ll
effect elements outside the Royale app if it’s not in an iframe.
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>>
[1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0>
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smashingmagazine.com%2F2007%2F07%2Fcss-specificity-things-you-should-know%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C36c2eb99bf2e4b45c44d08d5cbf2422f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636639163710627765&sdata=1YPJLfmzcaeFlh%2Bu2FTmbTHgvIvS6n%2BhVQiZhiucJqs%3D&reserved=0>>
>
