The thing is that in order to compute the layout correctly, you have to
start from the layout root. The concept of layout roots is not
documented well in the API ( we use the term in few place, but never
define it) and people would have to know how to identify the layout root
and also know that they need to start from the layout root. Also,
there's no way to check which Node is the layout root, although you can
identify it using managedProperty(), it's parent and/or subscene.
The validate methods finds the layout root of the subtree where the Node
resides and does the layout from that layout root. If somebody needs
more precise control over layout, we can leave the layout() methods
public. But I expect people will be confused that simply calling the
layout() on a Node will not result in the layout they will see after pulse.
-Martin
On 07/12/2013 03:05 PM, steve.x.northo...@oracle.com wrote:
I don't agree. It's pretty clear that when you call applyCSS(), then
CSS is applied. The rest of the JFX API works exactly as expected and
as documented. The programmer has precise control over what happens,
when it happens and where it happens.
Can you summarize what "validate" does? Is it sent to a leaf or the
root node or does it matter?
Steve
On 12/07/2013 6:36 AM, Martin Sladecek wrote:
What you suggest would be quite hard to use. Actually I think most of
the developers will not know how to use it properly in order to get
the right measurement.
Simple "validate" call would be more convenient and less error-prone.
-Martin
On 07/12/2013 12:02 AM, steve.x.northo...@oracle.com wrote:
I don't think I understand the answer. Are you saying that what we
are suggesting is wrong conceptually or hard to implement or ...?
Steve
On 11/07/2013 1:23 PM, Martin Sladecek wrote:
No, I will change the dirty roots to dirty flags on every node.
With them, it's possible to use it the way you suggest (applyCSS &
layout on nearest layout root), but it's much more convenient if we
could identify the layout root of the subtree and apply the layout
from there downwards. I think it's something most of the usecases
would want (SB, snapshot) but it's not that simple to identify
layout root (we have private flag for that in every Node, so
internally it's just one boolean check).
-Martin
On 07/11/2013 05:15 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
This might work for CSS, but won't for layout. The second
example won't work because you'd just do layout of the node
itself. It might get a different size from it's parent during
the next layout pass (and the parent from it's parent, etc...).
So the layout will look different after the next pulse. This is
why we need more than layout() call and it's not just about
adding the CSS.
If I understand properly this would be the correct behavior. If I
ask a subtree of nodes to layout after setting the size of the
subtree root, then go farther up the tree to an ancestor, ensure
the ancestor has a size and layout again, the original subtree
might be layed out differently and I would expect that. If I
need to take a snapshot of a child and it has to be in context of
the entire tree, I do CC in the root, force layout in the root
and then take a snapshot of the child.
That was what I was thinking as well, I don't understand why we
have to do more than provide a way to apply CSS in order to
satisfy all the use cases? Note that the old implementation (with
lists of dirty roots on the Scene, or is this still the way we do
it?) might be problematic here, I don't know, but from an API
point of view, it seems like this is exactly what you want.
Richard
