Right, I prefer the actual "visible", just saying that I found a case where I need just make the artifact invisible, while it maintains the space occupied
Maybe this is 1% of cases, but I think we need a bead just to handle "visibility" css property in Royale from AS3. I don't think this should mimic flex since we end always setting two properties each time what was cumbersome. El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:02, Harbs (<[email protected]>) escribió: > includeInLayout actually removes the object from the structure when not > included. > > I guess theoretically this can mean a simpler structure, but to me visible > is better because: > > 1. There’s less overhead on adding and removing. > 2. With includeInLayout there’s more chance of getting RTEs when the > element does not exist, while with visible, it exists even when not > computed for layout. > > > On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have: > > > > visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it changes > > "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right? > > if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object > > disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex > > will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false > > if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the > > object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute in > > layout, > > so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true > > This use to be the main use we all do most of the times. > > > > in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not visible > > but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen) > > so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true > > always. > > > > I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard > I'm > > adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the > space > > but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think this > > will be useful for others. > > > > Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has > no > > sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful > > > > @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say > > Disable/Enable is for visibility? > > > > > > > > El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<[email protected]>) > escribió: > > > >> Why not just use “visible”? > >> > >>> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property > (with > >>> visible/hidden) > >>> > >>> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a > >> bead > >>> if there's no other proposal. > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
