I guess we’re a bit prejudiced coming from Flex. Once you let go of the notion
that percentages are not of the available space but of the total parent space,
it sort of makes sense.
________________________________
From: Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2018 11:29:38 AM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fixes #258. But is that a
proper fix?
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
