The changes in the ChildResize branch didn't take too long because it only hooked up re-layout for width/height changes in children. It doesn’t have the propagation of measurement changes because the test case didn't seem to need it. If you have a scenario where measurement does change then we can work on adding the propagation.
Lots of components get an initial measured width/height of 0. Sometimes that's because offsetWidth/Height are 0 at initialization, sometimes it is because no content has been assigned yet. So the 0 trigger is sort of a hack to deal with that. It might go away if we implement the measurement change propagation. The getting of measuredWidth/Height was a way to call measure() on demand. But I think we'll end up shifting to calling measure() more often as properties that affect measurement change. It is tempting to have invalidateSize() immediately call measure() and then send an event if measurement changes, but I'm concerned that measure() might get called too often so we might just have setters call measure and send the event. For the existing code, my thinking was that components where 0 is a valid measuredWidth/Height would override the getter and do some other computation to return a valid number, including 0. HTH, -Alex On 6/8/20, 4:57 PM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote: Alex, I found another layout related issue to do with measurement. measuredWidth and measuredHeight can be zero as valid values. But the getters in UIComponent consider <= 0 as a trigger to re-evaluate the measurement. I'm assuming that we have the zero value to also re-trigger calculation (and not just NaN) in js for a specific reason. In that case I believe the following needs to be added to the measuredWidth and measuredHeight getters: e.g. inside public function get measuredHeight():Number the part that is like this: if (child) mh = Math.max(mh, child.getExplicitOrMeasuredHeight()); should, IMO, be like: if (child && child.includeInLayout) mh = Math.max(mh, child.getExplicitOrMeasuredHeight()); (Likewise, similar for measuredWidth) This fixes an issue in the app I am porting with containers where all children can have includeInLayout=false (and the measured height is assigned calculated and assigned as zero at the end of the BoxLayout's measure method, but then the getter on the target recalculates with a higher measuredHeight because it is still including the children which ought to be excluded from the calculation : includeInLayout=false) I'm tempted to make these changes in MXRoyale, but I don't know if others may be relying on the current behavior. What do you think? thanks, Greg On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 8:35 AM Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Alex, that was quick! I will try to find time during my > Tuesday-Friday to work on this. Otherwise, if I can't get to it then, I can > definitely spend time on it during my next weekend. > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:07 PM Alex Harui <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I pushed a branch called ChildResize. It seemed to make the example work >> much better, without even getting into measure() changes, possibly because >> the example doesn't really test measurement changes. >> >> IMO, to handle measurement changes, the measure() logic would dispatch >> some new event if the measureWidth/Height change. The BoxLayout would be >> listening, run its measure(), and dispatch that same event to its parent if >> it changes, and if it doesn't change, then run layout. That event would be >> listened for in the listenToChildren() method I added to BoxLayout. >> >> There should be a difference between measurement changes and setting >> width/height. If you set width/height on a child, then the child's layout >> should run. Assuming layout only runs if width/height change, then I think >> it shouldn't really matter that much if it runs before or after notifying >> the parent. The parent should honor the width/height so the child's layout >> shouldn't run again. The child can check isWidthSizedToContent() to >> determine if the parent needs notification. >> >> If you want to modify the test case to introduce a measurement change >> then we can try handling that. Feel free to try adding the measure() >> handling to the test case and to BoxLayout. Otherwise I will try to code >> it up sometime this week. >> >> HTH, >> -Alex >> >> On 6/7/20, 4:26 PM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> > That's my goal in the changes I'm playing with: to mimic the 2 >> passes. >> > We'll see how it goes. >> >> >> Ok, that's good to know. I hadn't picked up on it being that >> extensive. If >> there's anything I can help with, please let me know. >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:07 AM Alex Harui <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> > Responses inline. >> > >> > On 6/7/20, 2:49 PM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > Turns out I was wrong and JS LayoutBase is not listening for >> > > widthChanged/heightChanged/sizeChanged. That was SWF-only >> code I saw >> > > earlier. IMO, that's the first thing to change by overriding >> > > handleChildrenAdded in BoxLayout and other MX Layouts. I >> don't >> > think Basic >> > > layouts need to watch children for size changes. >> > >> > Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. Not only was it swf-only, it >> was only >> > prior >> > to 'sawInitCompleted' (or whatever the exact name for that flag >> is, >> > going >> > from memory). >> > >> > I thought I'd read that in one of your posts but couldn't find it >> when I >> > looked for it. Anyway, the parent needs to listen to each child >> for some >> > event. >> > >> > For the 'handleChildrenAdded' thing it also needs to cover >> > 'handleChildrenRemoved'. Doing things this way would mean >> adding the 3 >> > size-related listeners on 'add' child and then removing them on >> > 'remove' >> > child. But I still think that could be avoidable. >> > Why? Because the children are already listening to these events >> for >> > their own layouts. Their own layouts respond to their size >> changes. So >> > the >> > question is : when does the parent need to know about the >> child's size >> > change: is it before it does it's own layout, or after (and >> could that >> > requirement be different for some 'parent' layouts)? The >> child's own >> > layout >> > process can inform the parent in either case via beforeLayout >> (where >> > the >> > parent could even signal to the child not to continue its own >> layout, >> > in >> > which case presumably the parent will simply 'take over') or >> > afterLayout(), >> > which could trigger a re-flow downwards from the parent - I >> definitely >> > did >> > not do all this with the 'workaround' I already added, but >> maybe there >> > is >> > something to this approach? On the other hand, if as you >> suggest, the >> > parent layouts are also adding their own listeners to each >> child, then >> > assuming the execution order of the size change listeners on the >> > children >> > will be deterministic in terms of when the parent layout runs >> its >> > listener >> > versus when the child's own layout runs its listener, it seems >> to me >> > that >> > adding individual listeners to each of the children could be >> doubling >> > up on >> > something that is already possible without doing that (just by >> thinking >> > about it in a different way : 'the children layouts are already >> > listening >> > to those events, and it is possible for them to talk to their >> parent >> > layouts'). >> > If all the MXRoyale layouts were doing something like the >> 'measure if >> > needed' before the layout, then maybe it could actually mimic >> the 2 >> > passes >> > of the Flex approach, using beforeLayout() and afterLayout() to >> advise >> > the >> > parent layouts... just pondering this, not at all sure yet. >> > >> > I have concerns about using beforeLayout/afterLayout to trigger >> another >> > layout such as the "layout loop" I wrote about earlier. I would >> rather >> > mimic the 2 Flex passes where the measuring would happen separately >> from >> > layout. >> > >> > >> > Also UIComponent's setActualSize() should set the noEvent flag >> on >> > > setWidthAndHeight. >> > >> > I assume that could work if the layout flow is always from the >> root of >> > the >> > display tree downwards, same as Flex. But if it is signaling up >> to let >> > parents know that a child's own layout caused some change that >> should >> > be >> > interesting to the parent, I am not so sure how that would work. >> > >> > IMO, in Flex, if non-layout code set the width/height of some >> component, >> > that would fire a change event to trigger a layout. But when >> layout code >> > set the width/height (via setActualSize), it would not fire events >> and >> > re-trigger another layout pass. It maybe be that instead of setting >> > noEvent on setWidthAndHeight that we set some flag in the handler >> to ignore >> > change events from children. >> > >> > The reason I'm suggesting these changes is because I think >> that's >> > closer to >> > > what Flex does. I don't think Flex has logic like >> > > sizeChangedBeforeLayout/sizeChangedDuringLayout logic. >> > >> > Yeah I get that. But unless we actually do the 'measure from >> > bottom-up'. >> > 'layout from top-down' flow as Flex, I think we might be stuck >> with >> > some >> > sort of workarounds that are not the same as Flex in any case >> because >> > we >> > are already not 'close' enough to how Flex does things (I >> really hope >> > I am >> > wrong, definitely keen to see your solution). >> > >> > That's my goal in the changes I'm playing with: to mimic the 2 >> passes. >> > We'll see how it goes. >> > >> > -Alex >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:23 PM Alex Harui >> <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Easy thing first: The bubbling of layoutNeeded from Image is >> a hack >> > and >> > > should go away someday. >> > > >> > > Turns out I was wrong and JS LayoutBase is not listening for >> > > widthChanged/heightChanged/sizeChanged. That was SWF-only >> code I saw >> > > earlier. IMO, that's the first thing to change by overriding >> > > handleChildrenAdded in BoxLayout and other MX Layouts. I >> don't >> > think Basic >> > > layouts need to watch children for size changes. >> > > >> > > Also UIComponent's setActualSize() should set the noEvent >> flag on >> > > setWidthAndHeight. >> > > >> > > The reason I'm suggesting these changes is because I think >> that's >> > closer >> > > to what Flex does. I don't think Flex has logic like >> > > sizeChangedBeforeLayout/sizeChangedDuringLayout logic. >> > > >> > > For some reason, ApplicationLayout is not getting the >> > > handleChildrenAdded. I will work on it more tomorrow. >> > > >> > > HTH, >> > > -Alex >> > > >> > > On 6/6/20, 12:16 AM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > Long day... I stepped away from the keyboard and thought >> I had >> > finished >> > > that when I returned. >> > > But this: ' although I know it's not a ' needs ''one:one >> mapping >> > for >> > > features/behavior" on the end (or something like that!) >> > > >> > > >> > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 7:13 PM Greg Dove < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > >> > > > Yeah, that is the sort of thinking that I was trying to >> make >> > work >> > > with >> > > > what is there already (and yes it does seem like maybe >> > something >> > > else is >> > > > missing). Apart from simple size changes, it is the >> change on >> > > measuredSize >> > > > after layout has happened in the child that I think some >> > parents >> > > *might* be >> > > > interested in when their children are containers with >> percent >> > > dimensions >> > > > ('flexible' children I think is how they are described >> in some >> > Flex >> > > code - >> > > > this sort of makes me think of css Flexbox a bit when I >> look >> > at what >> > > the >> > > > BoxLayout stuff is doing, although I know it's not a ). >> > > > But I am probably only scratching the surface here, you >> have >> > the >> > > > experience with this stuff. >> > > > In terms of plumbing, one thing I pondered about would >> be >> > whether >> > > MXRoyale >> > > > layouts could form their own tree where they >> connect/detach >> > directly >> > > to >> > > > eachother as part of addChild/removeChild so that it is >> almost >> > like >> > > a tree >> > > > in parallel with the display tree. >> > > > Maybe that could be a structure where they talk to each >> other >> > > directly up >> > > > and down the tree with measurement and layout order >> somehow >> > > optimized. I >> > > > think it still would not be as efficient as using the >> 'temporal >> > > buffer' of >> > > > the Flex life cycle, with enterFrame or with >> > 'requestAnimationFrame' >> > > but >> > > > maybe it could be a little better... not sure, was just >> a >> > thought >> > > and I >> > > > know it seems like a radical change, so maybe that >> alone rules >> > it >> > > out. >> > > > >> > > > I was going to drop another zip into the github issue. >> It >> > occurred >> > > to me >> > > > that it might be easier for you to test if I just put >> the >> > changed >> > > files >> > > > into the test app fileset as a monkey patch. That way >> you can >> > mess >> > > with >> > > > them locally more easily if you want to make quick >> changes and >> > > retest, >> > > > without recompiling MXRoyale. (I was doing this a bit >> with >> > > GridItem/GridRow >> > > > today in the app I am working on, where I have the >> monkey patch >> > > approach >> > > > and it's quite a bit faster when testing changes). >> > > > >> > > > A little aside: one other thing I think I noticed >> today... I >> > think mx >> > > > Image has a 'layoutNeeded' dispatch on image load. That >> makes >> > sense. >> > > But I >> > > > think I saw that it is a bubbling event. Is that >> correct? >> > Would this >> > > call >> > > > layoutNeeded all the way up to SystemManager for a >> deeply >> > nested >> > > Image (I >> > > > did not check if it does yet)? >> > > > >> > > > Thanks again for looking at this. If I can help by >> creating >> > more test >> > > > cases or looking into anything specific in more detail, >> let me >> > know. >> > > > Greg >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sat, Jun 6, 2020 at 6:30 PM Alex Harui >> > <[email protected]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> I hope to have time tomorrow. >> > > >> >> > > >> Looking quickly at the things you've tried to fix the >> > problem, it >> > > occurs >> > > >> to me that the piece that is probably missing in >> MXRoyale is >> > the >> > > >> propagation of something like invalidateSize() instead >> of just >> > > >> "layoutNeeded". My thinking is that in the general >> case the >> > child >> > > can't >> > > >> really know that because something about the child >> changed >> > that the >> > > parent >> > > >> needs to run a new layout and especially the parent of >> that >> > parent. >> > > >> >> > > >> So some new plumbing may be needed where, when a >> component >> > changes >> > > in a >> > > >> way that its measured or explicit size had changed (as >> > opposed to >> > > the size >> > > >> change from the parent laying out the child), that >> some sort >> > of >> > > >> layoutMightBeNeeded is sent to the parent which then >> uses its >> > > measurement >> > > >> code and explicit sizes to determine whether its size >> has >> > changed >> > > and >> > > >> propagates a layoutMightBeNeeded to its parent. But >> if it >> > decides >> > > its size >> > > >> has not changed, it would then run layout which should >> start >> > the >> > > parents >> > > >> laying out children. >> > > >> >> > > >> We'll see if the test case points in that direction. >> > > >> >> > > >> HTH, >> > > >> -Alex >> > > >> >> > > >> On 6/5/20, 3:05 AM, "Greg Dove" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Hi Alex, thanks for the detailed explanation and >> offer to >> > take a >> > > >> look, for >> > > >> now some quick replies inline.... please add >> questions in >> > the >> > > github >> > > >> issue >> > > >> if you want more details about anything I did so >> far. >> > > >> thanks >> > > >> Greg >> > > >> >> > > >> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:50 PM Alex Harui >> > > <[email protected]> >> > > >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> > Greg, >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I think this thread got forked somehow. If you >> have a >> > simple >> > > test >> > > >> case I >> > > >> > can try to look at it this weekend. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Thanks. I added issue #849 [1] which should give >> you >> > > something to >> > > >> look at. >> > > >> I suggest you open the Flex build in a browser and >> then >> > compare >> > > >> things to >> > > >> it in Royale. There are 2 royale builds as well >> with the >> > same >> > > code in >> > > >> the >> > > >> other 2 zips. One without the modifications to >> MXRoyale >> > and one >> > > with. >> > > >> The >> > > >> 'one with' zip also has the modified MXRoyale >> files, so >> > you >> > > should be >> > > >> able >> > > >> to drop them in and overwrite in your local >> MXRoyale and >> > build >> > > to >> > > >> test/review/change what I did. I'm the first to >> admit >> > that I do >> > > think >> > > >> it >> > > >> doesn't feel right. But so far at least it does >> make a >> > bunch of >> > > code >> > > >> work >> > > >> in one app with a lot of deeply nested layouts >> that was >> > not >> > > working >> > > >> before. >> > > >> It certainly does not make everything work. But it >> helps >> > quite >> > > a bit. >> > > >> Certainly appreciate any review/consideration. I am >> > really keen >> > > to >> > > >> collaborate on a solution that makes sense for >> most here. >> > > >> >> > > >> I don't doubt that the changes you propose work >> for you, >> > but >> > > they >> > > >> make me >> > > >> > nervous although I'm not the best at reading >> code and >> > > understanding >> > > >> what it >> > > >> > does. Here's a brain dump on layout in case it >> helps. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > So far they work better 'for me' I agree. But I >> think >> > you >> > > probably >> > > >> know me >> > > >> enough by now to know that if I am confident that >> I have a >> > > >> contribution >> > > >> that is objectively good (passes unit tests >> compared with >> > swf >> > > is my >> > > >> normal >> > > >> benchmark) then I will add it. Part of the reason I >> > started this >> > > >> discussion >> > > >> is because I feel a bit the same way here. I am >> still >> > learning >> > > this >> > > >> stuff >> > > >> and figuring things out, so I am not pushing it >> because I >> > don't >> > > want >> > > >> to >> > > >> inflict anything that is not an objective >> improvement on >> > others. >> > > >> >> > > >> In terms of describing it, the main thing I think, >> is >> > that the >> > > view >> > > >> checks >> > > >> when layout happens if there was a size change >> since last >> > time >> > > layout >> > > >> ran, >> > > >> or if there was a change in size during the >> current run. >> > Then >> > > there >> > > >> is some >> > > >> somewhat awkward checking to see if the parent >> might be >> > > interested in >> > > >> this >> > > >> because there is some 'sizedToContent' aspect to >> it (which >> > > includes a >> > > >> percentage variation on that check). If we think >> it is >> > > relevant, then >> > > >> request the parent to layout. Is this likely to do >> it >> > sometimes >> > > when >> > > >> it is >> > > >> not needed, I suspect so. But so far it has not >> caused any >> > > problems >> > > >> in the >> > > >> codebase I am working with. >> > > >> >> > > >> I'm also working on the Grid related stuff, but >> you could >> > > probably >> > > >> just >> > > >> ignore that for now and focus only on the >> BoxLayout stuff. >> > > >> >> > > >> In Flex, parents always size their children. The >> children >> > > probably >> > > >> > shouldn't override that size or if they do they >> have to >> > be >> > > careful >> > > >> that it >> > > >> > doesn't trigger the another layout in the parent >> in a >> > way >> > > that you >> > > >> run >> > > >> > layout forever (a "layout loop"). In Flex, >> because of >> > the >> > > >> LayoutManager >> > > >> > running on frame events, that generally doesn't >> freeze >> > the UI >> > > and I >> > > >> have >> > > >> > seen situations where the LayoutManager never >> goes idle >> > even >> > > though >> > > >> the app >> > > >> > appears to be running fine. There is also the >> case >> > where the >> > > first >> > > >> layout >> > > >> > pass results in scrollbars which causes children >> to >> > adjust and >> > > >> results in >> > > >> > the removal of scrollbars and that loops forever >> with >> > the >> > > scrollbars >> > > >> > blinking on and off. In Royale, there is a >> greater >> > chance of >> > > >> hanging. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Also in Flex, with the LayoutManager, EVERY >> widget added >> > > itself to >> > > >> the >> > > >> > LayoutManager ensuring validation in a >> particular order, >> > > enforcing >> > > >> the >> > > >> > "parents size children" rule. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > In Royale, I tried to go without a LayoutManager >> > because we >> > > started >> > > >> out >> > > >> > targeting IE8 and I wasn’t sure if there were >> some >> > things >> > > that were >> > > >> > exceptions to requestAnimationFrame (like >> setting text >> > or >> > > sizing >> > > >> images). >> > > >> > To this day, I'm concerned that it will create >> an poor >> > > debugging >> > > >> experience >> > > >> > because I think when you hit breakpoints the >> screen >> > updates. >> > > All >> > > >> of those >> > > >> > things need testing before we try a >> LayoutManager based >> > on >> > > >> > requestAnimationFrame. And then, as I think you >> > mentioned, >> > > we have >> > > >> to be >> > > >> > concerned about how much code is going to run if >> we >> > start >> > > running >> > > >> all of >> > > >> > the validation methods. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > On the other hand, I think Royale runs layout >> too often >> > still >> > > >> because two >> > > >> > property changes can trigger two layout passes. >> I >> > looked at >> > > >> BoxLayout >> > > >> > which extends LayoutBase which does already >> watch for >> > > >> > widthChanged/heightChanged/sizeChanged so >> whatever is >> > the root >> > > >> cause of >> > > >> > your problem may not be triggering the layout >> pass you >> > want, >> > > >> although the >> > > >> > code paths in LayoutBase.childResizeHandler are >> there to >> > > prevent >> > > >> layout >> > > >> > loops. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Usually, in Flex, a component didn't change its >> size in >> > > response to >> > > >> user >> > > >> > interaction or data loading, it changed its >> measured >> > size and >> > > called >> > > >> > invalidateSize on itself and its parent. The >> > LayoutManager >> > > measured >> > > >> > children before parents, then layed out parents >> before >> > > children. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Yeah, that's the vague notion I had, your >> explanation >> > has >> > > helped >> > > >> cement my >> > > >> understanding. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > In Royale, there is little to no measurement >> subsystem. >> > > That's >> > > >> because we >> > > >> > rely on the browser to "immediately" measure by >> setting >> > > >> > offsetWidth/offsetHeight saving us the >> impossible task >> > of >> > > writing >> > > >> code to >> > > >> > guess at how the browser measures. For PAYG >> reasons in >> > Basic, >> > > >> there is no >> > > >> > code looking for changes that should trigger a >> layout >> > other >> > > than >> > > >> possibly >> > > >> > child size changes. Everything else is supposed >> to use >> > > >> > LayoutChangeNotifier to wire the one event that >> signals >> > a >> > > change to >> > > >> the >> > > >> > container/layout that cares. >> > > >> >> > > >> In MXRoyale, there are complex components that >> can't rely >> > on >> > > >> > offsetWidth/Height since MXRoyale cannot rely on >> browser >> > > layout >> > > >> because of >> > > >> > things like overriding the meaning of width=100%. >> > MXRoyale >> > > has >> > > >> measure() >> > > >> > methods from Flex, but they don't always get run >> because >> > > there is no >> > > >> > LayoutManager measuring the children before the >> parents >> > and >> > > existing >> > > >> > measure() methods expect the children to have >> been >> > measured. >> > > It >> > > >> might be >> > > >> > that is the root cause here. That some or all >> > > invalidateSize() >> > > >> calls need >> > > >> > to call measure() and then instead of calling >> > layoutNeeded on >> > > the >> > > >> parent, >> > > >> > call the parent's invalidateSize until somehow >> we know >> > we've >> > > gone >> > > >> far >> > > >> > enough up the chain to start laying out again. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > After the changes I made I do still need to make >> > changes in >> > > some >> > > >> specific >> > > >> areas, but usually this type of thing does the >> trick: >> > > >> >> > > >> var layout:BoxLayout = >> > > >> containerContents.getBeadByType(BoxLayout) as >> BoxLayout; >> > > >> if (layout) { >> > > >> layout.measure(); >> > > >> } >> > > >> containerContents.layoutNeeded(); >> > > >> >> > > >> Note: calling measure() explicitly like that with >> > BoxLayout >> > > seems to >> > > >> be >> > > >> necessary sometimes before an explicit layout >> request. It >> > might >> > > only >> > > >> work >> > > >> more after the changes I made, not sure whether it >> makes a >> > > difference >> > > >> before or not. >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > HTH, >> > > >> > -Alex >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > On 6/4/20, 1:51 PM, "Greg Dove" < >> [email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> > 'I don’t think we’ve dealt with a lot of >> children >> > changing >> > > >> sizes (other >> > > >> > than Images loading late and a few other >> things) so >> > it >> > > may be >> > > >> time to >> > > >> > listen to >> widthChanged/heightChanged/sizeChanged as >> > > children >> > > >> get added >> > > >> > if >> > > >> > there isn’t already code doing that.' >> > > >> > >> > > >> > That would be another way of doing it. There >> is >> > already >> > > this >> > > >> code [1] >> > > >> > that >> > > >> > is swf-only but seems to only be relevant >> before >> > > >> sawInitComplete. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > But if the children run their layouts when >> their >> > own size >> > > >> changes, then >> > > >> > they can notify their parent as well if the >> size >> > changed >> > > either >> > > >> before >> > > >> > or >> > > >> > during layout. That's sort of what I was >> trying to >> > do >> > > with the >> > > >> > ContainerView change I mentioned earlier. It >> checks >> > size >> > > for >> > > >> change in >> > > >> > beforeLayout and again in afterLayout and >> then >> > requests >> > > parent >> > > >> layout >> > > >> > if it >> > > >> > thinks the parent needs to do something that >> could >> > affect >> > > parent >> > > >> > layout or >> > > >> > even re-apply its own rules to the current >> target. >> > In >> > > this way >> > > >> there >> > > >> > is not >> > > >> > a need to add listeners to every child. But >> I expect >> > > there are >> > > >> some >> > > >> > downsides or things I cannot see with what I >> did so >> > far >> > > because >> > > >> I have >> > > >> > not >> > > >> > spent a lot of time in this code, as you >> have. I'll >> > post >> > > more >> > > >> details >> > > >> > in >> > > >> > the github issue at my EOD. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > 1. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fapache%2Froyale-asjs%2Fblob%2F9c70b052a6fef3ebe7c6a07ca887af4f7381d46f%2Fframeworks%2Fprojects%2FCore%2Fsrc%2Fmain%2Froyale%2Forg%2Fapache%2Froyale%2Fcore%2FLayoutBase.as%23L131&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Ccf31cbaae5b54149555008d80c07abf1%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637272574377108976&sdata=lzhiaYqbbqerojKKy4JjrUnPsscFPJ%2FN%2BFEgvzEjqeE%3D&reserved=0 >> > > >> > >> > > >> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 3:32 AM Alex Harui >> > > >> <[email protected]> >> > > >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > Serkan, is there a bug tracking your >> layout issue? >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > There should be a difference between first >> layout >> > if all >> > > >> children >> > > >> > have >> > > >> > > known sizes and what Greg is describing >> which is >> > > responding to >> > > >> > children >> > > >> > > changing sizes. I don’t think we’ve dealt >> with a >> > lot of >> > > >> children >> > > >> > changing >> > > >> > > sizes (other than Images loading late and >> a few >> > other >> > > things) >> > > >> so it >> > > >> > may be >> > > >> > > time to listen to >> > > widthChanged/heightChanged/sizeChanged as >> > > >> children >> > > >> > get >> > > >> > > added if there isn’t already code doing >> that. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > There might be other issues with containers >> > having an >> > > inner >> > > >> > contentArea >> > > >> > > that might be getting in the way too. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > HTH, >> > > >> > > -Alex >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > From: Yishay Weiss <[email protected] >> > >> > > >> > > Reply-To: "[email protected]" < >> > > [email protected]> >> > > >> > > Date: Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 4:30 AM >> > > >> > > To: "[email protected]" < >> > [email protected]> >> > > >> > > Subject: RE: MXRoyale layout issues - >> > > questions/discussion >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Call me lazy but this is a bit difficult to >> > parse. If >> > > you can >> > > >> spare >> > > >> > some >> > > >> > > time, maybe come up with a GitHub issue >> that >> > describes a >> > > >> concrete >> > > >> > case so >> > > >> > > we can discuss this. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > I think the layouts work downward for >> this, but >> > > changes in >> > > >> the >> > > >> > children >> > > >> > > don't seem to trigger the parent layout. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Yes, I’ve seen that as well. Alex’s advice >> when I >> > > pointed it >> > > >> out to >> > > >> > him >> > > >> > > was to just add a parent.dispatchEvent(new >> > > >> Event(‘layoutNeeded’)) if >> > > >> > it >> > > >> > > solves a concrete bug. It’s true that this >> could >> > result >> > > in a >> > > >> > performance >> > > >> > > hit. If that’s your issue then I guess we >> can >> > discuss >> > > >> emulation of >> > > >> > the >> > > >> > > layout manager or some other optimization. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > From: Greg Dove <[email protected]> >> > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:12:08 AM >> > > >> > > To: Apache Royale Development < >> > [email protected]> >> > > >> > > Subject: MXRoyale layout issues - >> > questions/discussion >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Just wondered if anyone else is dealing >> with >> > layout >> > > issues in >> > > >> Flex >> > > >> > > emulation. I have some layout issues that >> are >> > slowing my >> > > >> progress on >> > > >> > a >> > > >> > > project, and I'd like to resolve them as >> quickly >> > as I >> > > can. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In particular, I see issues with >> BoxLayout-based >> > > containers >> > > >> which >> > > >> > have >> > > >> > > percentWidth or percentHeight set. These >> don't get >> > > determined >> > > >> as >> > > >> > having >> > > >> > > width or height 'SizedToContent' when >> performing >> > > layout, but >> > > >> in many >> > > >> > > situations they behave in a similar way >> (they can >> > change >> > > >> their size >> > > >> > based >> > > >> > > on their content in terms of layout rules >> applied >> > by the >> > > >> parent >> > > >> > container). >> > > >> > > This is because in Flex, percentages are >> not >> > simply a >> > > >> percentage of >> > > >> > their >> > > >> > > parent, but they follow something perhaps >> a little >> > > closer to >> > > >> flexbox >> > > >> > layout >> > > >> > > rules for all the percentWidth or >> percentHeight >> > siblings >> > > >> (managed by >> > > >> > their >> > > >> > > parent's layout). In other words, they are >> also >> > related >> > > to the >> > > >> > measured >> > > >> > > size of their content if the parent needs >> to >> > manage >> > > them (I'm >> > > >> not >> > > >> > sure how >> > > >> > > best to describe this, but I think that >> sort of >> > > captures it). >> > > >> They >> > > >> > can >> > > >> > > expand beyond their percent allocation or >> contract >> > > below it >> > > >> > depending on >> > > >> > > their measured sizes. >> > > >> > > I think the layouts work downward for >> this, but >> > changes >> > > in the >> > > >> > children >> > > >> > > don't seem to trigger the parent layout. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > An example might be >> > > >> > > <mx:HBox id='addThingsToMe' width='50%' /> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > If you have the above at the application >> level >> > (where >> > > the >> > > >> > application has >> > > >> > > vertical layout) and keep adding buttons >> (for >> > example) >> > > to the >> > > >> HBox >> > > >> > via a UI >> > > >> > > test button that adds a new Button to that >> on each >> > > click, >> > > >> then it >> > > >> > should >> > > >> > > expand horizontally greater than 50% width >> when >> > the >> > > volume of >> > > >> buttons >> > > >> > > exceeds its nominal 50% width. It is >> definitely >> > easier >> > > to see >> > > >> this >> > > >> > if you >> > > >> > > add a border to the container. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I have been working on this, and made >> progress, >> > but the >> > > >> approach I >> > > >> > am using >> > > >> > > feels a bit patchwork, and just wondered >> whether >> > others >> > > are >> > > >> seeing >> > > >> > anything >> > > >> > > like this, and/or how it has been addressed >> > > elsewhere.... >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Here's a summary of some of the things I >> have been >> > > trying, >> > > >> which do >> > > >> > yield >> > > >> > > improvements, but don't really solve the >> problem >> > > completely: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 1. added extra listener for >> 'childrenRemoved' in >> > > BoxLayout >> > > >> strand >> > > >> > setter. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2. Created a new mx 'ContainerView' class >> > > >> > > (mx.containers.beads.ContainerView extends >> > > >> > > org.apache.royale.html.beads.ContainerView) >> > > >> > > This has the following in it: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > private var widthBefore:Number = -1 >> > > >> > > private var heightBefore:Number = -1; >> > > >> > > private var >> sizeChangedBeforeLayout:Boolean; >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > COMPILE::JS >> > > >> > > override public function >> beforeLayout():Boolean >> > > >> > > { >> > > >> > > var container:Container = host as >> Container; >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > sizeChangedBeforeLayout = (widthBefore != >> > > container.width || >> > > >> > heightBefore >> > > >> > > != container.height); >> > > >> > > widthBefore = container.width; >> > > >> > > heightBefore = container.height; >> > > >> > > return super.beforeLayout(); >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > COMPILE::JS >> > > >> > > override public function >> afterLayout():void >> > > >> > > { >> > > >> > > var container:Container = host as >> > Container; >> > > >> > > //size might change during layout >> > > >> > > var sizeChangedDuringLayout:Boolean = >> > > >> !sizeChangedBeforeLayout && >> > > >> > > (widthBefore != container.width || >> heightBefore != >> > > >> container.height); >> > > >> > > if (sizeChangedDuringLayout) { >> > > >> > > //prepare for next time >> > > >> > > widthBefore = container.width; >> > > >> > > heightBefore = container.height; >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > var requestParentLayout:Boolean = >> > > sizeChangedBeforeLayout >> > > >> > > || sizeChangedDuringLayout >> > > >> > > || >> (!isNaN(container.percentWidth) && >> > > >> container.width < >> > > >> > > container.measuredWidth) || >> > > (!isNaN(container.percentHeight) >> > > >> && >> > > >> > > container.height < >> container.measuredHeight); >> > > >> > > if (requestParentLayout && >> > container.parent is >> > > >> Container) { >> > > >> > > trace('requesting parent layout of >> ',(container as >> > > >> > > Object).ROYALE_CLASS_INFO.names[0].qName ); >> > > >> > > (container.parent as >> > > Container).layoutNeeded(); >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > That is pretty much it, and it is being >> used as a >> > > replacement >> > > >> in my >> > > >> > local >> > > >> > > MXRoyale css for Container: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > /*IBeadView: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > ClassReference("org.apache.royale.html.beads.ContainerView");*/ >> > > >> > > IBeadView: >> > > >> ClassReference("mx.containers.beads.ContainerView"); >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I'm not saying this is right, but it does >> help >> > quite a >> > > bit >> > > >> with what >> > > >> > I am >> > > >> > > facing. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In addition to BoxLayout in general, I >> have been >> > > working on >> > > >> the >> > > >> > > Grid/GridRow/GridItem layouts which are >> more >> > specific in >> > > >> terms of >> > > >> > layout >> > > >> > > changes needed, but also can have similar >> > problems. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Although I am seeing improvements with >> what I >> > have done >> > > so >> > > >> far, I'm >> > > >> > not >> > > >> > > really satisfied with it, and I am keen for >> > > input/discussion >> > > >> (or >> > > >> > > collaboration). I have been pursuing what >> I would >> > mostly >> > > >> describe as >> > > >> > a >> > > >> > > 'workaround' approach, so would welcome any >> > thoughts on >> > > how >> > > >> best to >> > > >> > tackle >> > > >> > > this. >> > > >> > > I think there is something missing because >> of the >> > way >> > > Flex >> > > >> does >> > > >> > layouts vs. >> > > >> > > the way Royale does it, but I can't >> describe it >> > fully >> > > yet. >> > > >> Perhaps >> > > >> > things >> > > >> > > are only currently envisaged to work with >> mxml >> > > declarative >> > > >> content >> > > >> > onto >> > > >> > > display and not so much with dynamic >> updates. But >> > I >> > > think >> > > >> state-based >> > > >> > > changes could have similar effects for >> some of >> > these >> > > things >> > > >> if they >> > > >> > happen >> > > >> > > inside containers that have their own >> percent >> > > dimensions. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Greg >> > > >> > > From: Greg Dove<mailto:[email protected] >> > >> > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 11:12 AM >> > > >> > > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto: >> > > [email protected]> >> > > >> > > Subject: MXRoyale layout issues - >> > questions/discussion >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Hi, >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Just wondered if anyone else is dealing >> with >> > layout >> > > issues in >> > > >> Flex >> > > >> > > emulation. I have some layout issues that >> are >> > slowing my >> > > >> progress on >> > > >> > a >> > > >> > > project, and I'd like to resolve them as >> quickly >> > as I >> > > can. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In particular, I see issues with >> BoxLayout-based >> > > containers >> > > >> which >> > > >> > have >> > > >> > > percentWidth or percentHeight set. These >> don't get >> > > determined >> > > >> as >> > > >> > having >> > > >> > > width or height 'SizedToContent' when >> performing >> > > layout, but >> > > >> in many >> > > >> > > situations they behave in a similar way >> (they can >> > change >> > > >> their size >> > > >> > based >> > > >> > > on their content in terms of layout rules >> applied >> > by the >> > > >> parent >> > > >> > container). >> > > >> > > This is because in Flex, percentages are >> not >> > simply a >> > > >> percentage of >> > > >> > their >> > > >> > > parent, but they follow something perhaps >> a little >> > > closer to >> > > >> flexbox >> > > >> > layout >> > > >> > > rules for all the percentWidth or >> percentHeight >> > siblings >> > > >> (managed by >> > > >> > their >> > > >> > > parent's layout). In other words, they are >> also >> > related >> > > to the >> > > >> > measured >> > > >> > > size of their content if the parent needs >> to >> > manage >> > > them (I'm >> > > >> not >> > > >> > sure how >> > > >> > > best to describe this, but I think that >> sort of >> > > captures it). >> > > >> They >> > > >> > can >> > > >> > > expand beyond their percent allocation or >> contract >> > > below it >> > > >> > depending on >> > > >> > > their measured sizes. >> > > >> > > I think the layouts work downward for >> this, but >> > changes >> > > in the >> > > >> > children >> > > >> > > don't seem to trigger the parent layout. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > An example might be >> > > >> > > <mx:HBox id='addThingsToMe' width='50%' /> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > If you have the above at the application >> level >> > (where >> > > the >> > > >> > application has >> > > >> > > vertical layout) and keep adding buttons >> (for >> > example) >> > > to the >> > > >> HBox >> > > >> > via a UI >> > > >> > > test button that adds a new Button to that >> on each >> > > click, >> > > >> then it >> > > >> > should >> > > >> > > expand horizontally greater than 50% width >> when >> > the >> > > volume of >> > > >> buttons >> > > >> > > exceeds its nominal 50% width. It is >> definitely >> > easier >> > > to see >> > > >> this >> > > >> > if you >> > > >> > > add a border to the container. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I have been working on this, and made >> progress, >> > but the >> > > >> approach I >> > > >> > am using >> > > >> > > feels a bit patchwork, and just wondered >> whether >> > others >> > > are >> > > >> seeing >> > > >> > anything >> > > >> > > like this, and/or how it has been addressed >> > > elsewhere.... >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Here's a summary of some of the things I >> have been >> > > trying, >> > > >> which do >> > > >> > yield >> > > >> > > improvements, but don't really solve the >> problem >> > > completely: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 1. added extra listener for >> 'childrenRemoved' in >> > > BoxLayout >> > > >> strand >> > > >> > setter. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > 2. Created a new mx 'ContainerView' class >> > > >> > > (mx.containers.beads.ContainerView extends >> > > >> > > org.apache.royale.html.beads.ContainerView) >> > > >> > > This has the following in it: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > private var widthBefore:Number = -1 >> > > >> > > private var heightBefore:Number = -1; >> > > >> > > private var >> sizeChangedBeforeLayout:Boolean; >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > COMPILE::JS >> > > >> > > override public function >> beforeLayout():Boolean >> > > >> > > { >> > > >> > > var container:Container = host as >> Container; >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > sizeChangedBeforeLayout = (widthBefore != >> > > container.width || >> > > >> > heightBefore >> > > >> > > != container.height); >> > > >> > > widthBefore = container.width; >> > > >> > > heightBefore = container.height; >> > > >> > > return super.beforeLayout(); >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > COMPILE::JS >> > > >> > > override public function >> afterLayout():void >> > > >> > > { >> > > >> > > var container:Container = host as >> > Container; >> > > >> > > //size might change during layout >> > > >> > > var sizeChangedDuringLayout:Boolean = >> > > >> !sizeChangedBeforeLayout && >> > > >> > > (widthBefore != container.width || >> heightBefore != >> > > >> container.height); >> > > >> > > if (sizeChangedDuringLayout) { >> > > >> > > //prepare for next time >> > > >> > > widthBefore = container.width; >> > > >> > > heightBefore = container.height; >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > var requestParentLayout:Boolean = >> > > sizeChangedBeforeLayout >> > > >> > > || sizeChangedDuringLayout >> > > >> > > || >> (!isNaN(container.percentWidth) && >> > > >> container.width < >> > > >> > > container.measuredWidth) || >> > > (!isNaN(container.percentHeight) >> > > >> && >> > > >> > > container.height < >> container.measuredHeight); >> > > >> > > if (requestParentLayout && >> > container.parent is >> > > >> Container) { >> > > >> > > trace('requesting parent layout of >> ',(container as >> > > >> > > Object).ROYALE_CLASS_INFO.names[0].qName ); >> > > >> > > (container.parent as >> > > Container).layoutNeeded(); >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > } >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > That is pretty much it, and it is being >> used as a >> > > replacement >> > > >> in my >> > > >> > local >> > > >> > > MXRoyale css for Container: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > /*IBeadView: >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > ClassReference("org.apache.royale.html.beads.ContainerView");*/ >> > > >> > > IBeadView: >> > > >> ClassReference("mx.containers.beads.ContainerView"); >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I'm not saying this is right, but it does >> help >> > quite a >> > > bit >> > > >> with what >> > > >> > I am >> > > >> > > facing. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > In addition to BoxLayout in general, I >> have been >> > > working on >> > > >> the >> > > >> > > Grid/GridRow/GridItem layouts which are >> more >> > specific in >> > > >> terms of >> > > >> > layout >> > > >> > > changes needed, but also can have similar >> > problems. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Although I am seeing improvements with >> what I >> > have done >> > > so >> > > >> far, I'm >> > > >> > not >> > > >> > > really satisfied with it, and I am keen for >> > > input/discussion >> > > >> (or >> > > >> > > collaboration). I have been pursuing what >> I would >> > mostly >> > > >> describe as >> > > >> > a >> > > >> > > 'workaround' approach, so would welcome any >> > thoughts on >> > > how >> > > >> best to >> > > >> > tackle >> > > >> > > this. >> > > >> > > I think there is something missing because >> of the >> > way >> > > Flex >> > > >> does >> > > >> > layouts vs. >> > > >> > > the way Royale does it, but I can't >> describe it >> > fully >> > > yet. >> > > >> Perhaps >> > > >> > things >> > > >> > > are only currently envisaged to work with >> mxml >> > > declarative >> > > >> content >> > > >> > onto >> > > >> > > display and not so much with dynamic >> updates. But >> > I >> > > think >> > > >> state-based >> > > >> > > changes could have similar effects for >> some of >> > these >> > > things >> > > >> if they >> > > >> > happen >> > > >> > > inside containers that have their own >> percent >> > > dimensions. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > >> > > Greg >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >>
