@Harbs, in the following video,
https://twitter.com/ApacheRoyale/status/1115026909363093511 buttons are using visibility css property instead of display css property change. If I use display, the changes in content width will make the slide effect look worse. So this is a special case. just to show you a concrete visual case thanks El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:41, Carlos Rovira (<[email protected]>) escribió: > 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 > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
