FWIW, I’ve found that the single-most painful part of developing using Royale
has been layouts.
I *think* defaulting to relative might help some issues, but things like
percentages simply don’t work as you’d expect in HTML. I have been forced to
stick calc() css in at least 12 places in my app.
> On Jun 11, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm finding some problems with all this in Jewel as I go deeper with
> layouts. I'll write about it soon, I hope to solve some issue and left most
> important to discuss.
> As I get something working, I see a collateral effect that makes other
> thing that was working fail on some way...it's like a puzzle where
> positioning, layout, states must adjust to work ok. And still I'm getting
> hard time with ClassSelectorList. I think we have an huge issue with class
> name handling through Royale, since is not consistent, and class names are
> essential in html. For example since layouts class names are some kind of
> "typenames", those are removed when a user adds some class...
>
> This is a sneak peak of what I'm finding, and hope to work more over it and
> try to raise only essential issues
>
>
>
> 2018-06-11 9:36 GMT+02:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
>
>> We could always have a bead which sets:
>>
>> .foo *{
>> position: static;
>> }
>> To reset the defaults of all elements below “foo” to static.
>>
>> Of course to change it to something else, you’d need:
>> .foo .baz{
>> position: absolute;
>> }
>>
>> I’m not sure how well this would work with the Jewel layout beads. I’m not
>> sure what the specificity is on that.
>>
>> Harbs
>>
>>> On Jun 11, 2018, at 10:11 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The emulation Application is based on Container and thus creates a Div.
>> It may not stay that way, but we did it so that the SystemManager can
>> parent the app like it does in Flex.
>>>
>>> Feel free to commit the bead. It won't hurt anything and some folks
>> will be able to use it. I'm still wondering what the right answer is going
>> to be for the emulation component sets. Or what to do if someone does have
>> some part of the DOM that they do not want style.position set. There is no
>> CSS way to specify "set style on all parents", AFAIK, which is would help
>> reduce side-effects.
>>>
>>> Later,
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 6/8/18, 9:02 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Interesting idea, but I thought there was concern about the global
>> selector affecting HTML around the app?
>>>
>>> Currently, we don’t have an Application class that attaches to
>> regular divs It always controls the body element. Since we control the
>> whole page, it’s not a problem. If we do get to the point where a Royale
>> app can be injected into a random div, then setting a global selector might
>> be a problem if there’s other HTML which relies on static. We can have
>> heavier-duty beads to deal with setting relative positioning in those cases.
>>>
>>> Harbs
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
