Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
Hi Alex,
El mar., 15 ene. 2019 a las 18:44, Alex Harui ()
escribió:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> IMO, we want to abstract away platform/runtime-specific implementations in
> the API surface. It is not a good idea to have our user's application rely
> on API practices that may not work on all targets. So first, we have to
> agree on what width/height is in Royale.
>
ok
>
> I do not think that UIBase width/height should map directly to CSS 'width'
> in the browser. That's mainly because we know that Flash/AIR .width does
> not support units (px, em, etc) and also because I think width/height
> should operate like it did in Flex. You set it to a number and it sets the
> size in pixels, you set it to % and it sets the percentWidth. You read it
> and you get the current size of the component in pixels. I believe we can
> make this behavior work on all targets going forward. It does not have any
> platform-specific behavior, IMO.
>
agree.
>
> IIRC, we also know that Flash/AIR will not accept NaN as a value for
> Sprite.width. And then, IMO, it isn't a good practice to tell our users to
> set any Number property to NaN. Things can start out as NaN in some cases,
> but setting things back to NaN doesn't seem right.
If starts with NaN, then for HTML platform is not initializing to NaN, that
should be taken into account (that's "initial")
> NaN checks are good for testing that your code is operating correctly.
> There are a few places where the framework sets NaN like in the pairing of
> explicitWidth/percentWidth, but the app developers shouldn't have to do
> that (in fact they are not supposed to do that), they should just be
> setting a new non-NaN value to explicitWidth or percentWidth.
>
ok
>
> So, I would like to better understand the "why" you need to set CSS width
> to "initial".
In HTML seems browsers handle a set of size (width or height) to some
specific value, but you can override the style to "initial", making the
object goes to that "undefined" value that makes it be handled by the
browser. So sometimes we want to be able to say the browser to put the
object in that state, but right now we only can set the width to a number.
So no way to tell our Royale App to unset width/height values once you set
up.
We only can create css selectors, but I think it wouldn't work since
setting style takes precedence, and for me that seems not in the Royale
normal way to do things and is more like a workaround or a hack.
> The places I've run into that in Royale have to do with sizeToContent. If
> a component is sizedToContent, there are scenarios where a layout has set
> CSS width to some value because it is a layout that doesn't rely completely
> on the browser for layout. The emulation components set
> position="absolute" and set CSS width to numbers because Flex layouts don't
> use CSS in a conforming way. So I've been setting CSS width="" (or
> "initial") in certain places in the lifecycle of the component, like in the
> Flex layouts or in a component's setActualSize in order to "clear the
> temporary value" of width so it can be computed properly again for the
> platform/runtime target. I'm guessing that if you look at why you want to
> set width to initial, it is for a similar "meaning" and you might have an
> protected/framework API called "clearTemporaryWidth" if you need to but
> hopefully, our app developers won't ever need to call it.
>
Ok, maybe we can step back for a while from this issue and see if we
finally need it.
The good is that I need it few times but as I solved the global problem
this turned to finally don't be used but due to change of the things to
accomplish.
If I get to this again, will see if we can solve it with some internal API
created for that.
thanks
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 1/15/19, 3:58 AM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 18:37, Alex Harui
> ()
> escribió:
>
> > Right now there are some places where we unset by setting
> width/height to
> > "". I think those will have to change to "initial" but it is the
> same
> > principle.
>
>
> But changing "" to "initial" seems to me focus just in HTML platform.
> What
> happens with SWF or future targets...or maybe I'm not understanding
> your
> proposal?
>
>
> > So think about the "meaning" behind the need to unset width/height
> and
> > whether there is a place in the implementation that is the right
> time to do
> > that.
> >
> >
> I think already did with this code right?
>
> public function setWidth(value:Number, noEvent:Boolean = false):void
> {
> if (_width !== value)
> {
> _width = value;
> COMPILE::JS
> {
> this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(_width) ? "initial" :
> value.toString()
> + 'px';
> }
> if (!noEvent)
> dispatchEvent(new Event("widthChanged"));
> }
> }
>
> Let me know if is ok for you
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
--
Carlos
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
Hi Carlos,
IMO, we want to abstract away platform/runtime-specific implementations in the
API surface. It is not a good idea to have our user's application rely on API
practices that may not work on all targets. So first, we have to agree on what
width/height is in Royale.
I do not think that UIBase width/height should map directly to CSS 'width' in
the browser. That's mainly because we know that Flash/AIR .width does not
support units (px, em, etc) and also because I think width/height should
operate like it did in Flex. You set it to a number and it sets the size in
pixels, you set it to % and it sets the percentWidth. You read it and you get
the current size of the component in pixels. I believe we can make this
behavior work on all targets going forward. It does not have any
platform-specific behavior, IMO.
IIRC, we also know that Flash/AIR will not accept NaN as a value for
Sprite.width. And then, IMO, it isn't a good practice to tell our users to set
any Number property to NaN. Things can start out as NaN in some cases, but
setting things back to NaN doesn't seem right. NaN checks are good for testing
that your code is operating correctly. There are a few places where the
framework sets NaN like in the pairing of explicitWidth/percentWidth, but the
app developers shouldn't have to do that (in fact they are not supposed to do
that), they should just be setting a new non-NaN value to explicitWidth or
percentWidth.
So, I would like to better understand the "why" you need to set CSS width to
"initial". The places I've run into that in Royale have to do with
sizeToContent. If a component is sizedToContent, there are scenarios where a
layout has set CSS width to some value because it is a layout that doesn't rely
completely on the browser for layout. The emulation components set
position="absolute" and set CSS width to numbers because Flex layouts don't use
CSS in a conforming way. So I've been setting CSS width="" (or "initial") in
certain places in the lifecycle of the component, like in the Flex layouts or
in a component's setActualSize in order to "clear the temporary value" of width
so it can be computed properly again for the platform/runtime target. I'm
guessing that if you look at why you want to set width to initial, it is for a
similar "meaning" and you might have an protected/framework API called
"clearTemporaryWidth" if you need to but hopefully, our app developers won't
ever need to call it.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 1/15/19, 3:58 AM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
Hi Alex,
El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 18:37, Alex Harui ()
escribió:
> Right now there are some places where we unset by setting width/height to
> "". I think those will have to change to "initial" but it is the same
> principle.
But changing "" to "initial" seems to me focus just in HTML platform. What
happens with SWF or future targets...or maybe I'm not understanding your
proposal?
> So think about the "meaning" behind the need to unset width/height and
> whether there is a place in the implementation that is the right time to
do
> that.
>
>
I think already did with this code right?
public function setWidth(value:Number, noEvent:Boolean = false):void
{
if (_width !== value)
{
_width = value;
COMPILE::JS
{
this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(_width) ? "initial" : value.toString()
+ 'px';
}
if (!noEvent)
dispatchEvent(new Event("widthChanged"));
}
}
Let me know if is ok for you
Thanks
Carlos
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
Hi Alex,
El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 18:37, Alex Harui ()
escribió:
> Right now there are some places where we unset by setting width/height to
> "". I think those will have to change to "initial" but it is the same
> principle.
But changing "" to "initial" seems to me focus just in HTML platform. What
happens with SWF or future targets...or maybe I'm not understanding your
proposal?
> So think about the "meaning" behind the need to unset width/height and
> whether there is a place in the implementation that is the right time to do
> that.
>
>
I think already did with this code right?
public function setWidth(value:Number, noEvent:Boolean = false):void
{
if (_width !== value)
{
_width = value;
COMPILE::JS
{
this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(_width) ? "initial" : value.toString()
+ 'px';
}
if (!noEvent)
dispatchEvent(new Event("widthChanged"));
}
}
Let me know if is ok for you
Thanks
Carlos
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
I've run into the "unset width/height" issue myself. IMO, unsetting
width/height is platform-specific and shouldn't be in the API surfaces of the
components. For me, I just had to pick the right place in the platform
implementation to set the values. Right now there are some places where we
unset by setting width/height to "". I think those will have to change to
"initial" but it is the same principle. So think about the "meaning" behind
the need to unset width/height and whether there is a place in the
implementation that is the right time to do that.
Emulation components have setStyle for backward compatibility with Flex. Jewel
can as well. I think Basic doesn't need it. We have enough ways for what are
currently rare cases for Basic apps.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 1/14/19, 7:24 AM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
Hi Alex,
El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 5:37, Alex Harui ()
escribió:
>
> NaN may not be a legal value on some runtimes/platforms.
mmm...but, right now, since property is actually NaN, you can pass NaN
value in Royale, so is a valid value actually, and I think Flex as well can
accept NaN right?
So if a runtime can then handle it, I think is up to that runtime to manage
through COMPILE::XX right?
I haven't followed this part of the thread. What is the scenario?
> UIBase.width is a Number because folks coming from Flex will expect it.
> The underlying CSS is a separate issue, IMO.
>
>
The scenario is a that HTML/JS/CSS interfaces needs to "unset" the
width/height and we can't fo this actually in AS3, just with css selector
overriding the value.
So this seems width/height implementation unfinished right?
unset (for me using NaN) should put for HTML platform width = style.width =
"initial" that is the way to say the browsers to "unset" that value and
remove the actual one (if any)
I found this problem working in some Jewel components like the ones that
popup something like ComboBox or DateField. If you search in Jewel for
"initial" you can see a commented line in "ComboBoxView" to see in some way
a real use case. Just notice I finaly didn't need since I change my
strategy about what I want that popup to behave, but that's just
circunstancial.
> IMO, we have the width/height properties that just about everybody will
> need in UIBase and everything else has to be added as a bead for PAYG
> reasons. Remember that a top-level-component aggregates beads and proxies
> them to the API surface, so it is up to the component set developers to
> decide which properties to proxy. There is no requirement to create a
> bead for each property, you can group them into a MinMaxWidthHeight bead
or
> something like that. It doesn't matter since different component sets can
> use different beads.
>
>
Ok I think I'll do a bead for each, I think that people would want to set
up min independently of max, so I think is better to have separated beads
if we want to enforce PAYG.
Don't make sense to me to join both in the same code since people could end
using one and couldn't need the other.
> If you want to add a setStyle() API or have properties like minWidth added
> to Jewel that's totally fine. I don't think Basic should have it. There
> are lower cost ways of setting CSS already in Basic.
>
very interesting...about setStyle, what you have in mind? a method to set a
any style using "prop" and "value" as inputs?
let me know a bit more about this, can you put a method signature of what
you propose? this could be very convenient
thanks
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> El vie., 11 ene. 2019 a las 20:59, Kessler CTR Mark J
> () escribió:
>
> > I'm slow getting to these emails, so if I've missed any, I
apologize.
> >
> > After this last two weeks I've come to the realization that the
> FlexBox
> > CSS style is greatly more flexible(no pun intended twice) than most
> of what
> > we have in AS. I could write a pile of examples for most common
> layouts if
> > it had enough interest. These were styles I ended up assigning
> using CSS
> > selectors assigned to MXML via the className property. I could even
> fix
> > formatting issues I was having in Jewel by overriding the styles
> this way.
> >
> >
> > If you really wanted to use a max width without adding coding
> overhead to
> > the SDK you could just add in CSS file selector to use max-width.
> >
> >
> > .MyStyle
> > {
> >Max:width: 200px;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
Hi Alex,
El lun., 14 ene. 2019 a las 5:37, Alex Harui ()
escribió:
>
> NaN may not be a legal value on some runtimes/platforms.
mmm...but, right now, since property is actually NaN, you can pass NaN
value in Royale, so is a valid value actually, and I think Flex as well can
accept NaN right?
So if a runtime can then handle it, I think is up to that runtime to manage
through COMPILE::XX right?
I haven't followed this part of the thread. What is the scenario?
> UIBase.width is a Number because folks coming from Flex will expect it.
> The underlying CSS is a separate issue, IMO.
>
>
The scenario is a that HTML/JS/CSS interfaces needs to "unset" the
width/height and we can't fo this actually in AS3, just with css selector
overriding the value.
So this seems width/height implementation unfinished right?
unset (for me using NaN) should put for HTML platform width = style.width =
"initial" that is the way to say the browsers to "unset" that value and
remove the actual one (if any)
I found this problem working in some Jewel components like the ones that
popup something like ComboBox or DateField. If you search in Jewel for
"initial" you can see a commented line in "ComboBoxView" to see in some way
a real use case. Just notice I finaly didn't need since I change my
strategy about what I want that popup to behave, but that's just
circunstancial.
> IMO, we have the width/height properties that just about everybody will
> need in UIBase and everything else has to be added as a bead for PAYG
> reasons. Remember that a top-level-component aggregates beads and proxies
> them to the API surface, so it is up to the component set developers to
> decide which properties to proxy. There is no requirement to create a
> bead for each property, you can group them into a MinMaxWidthHeight bead or
> something like that. It doesn't matter since different component sets can
> use different beads.
>
>
Ok I think I'll do a bead for each, I think that people would want to set
up min independently of max, so I think is better to have separated beads
if we want to enforce PAYG.
Don't make sense to me to join both in the same code since people could end
using one and couldn't need the other.
> If you want to add a setStyle() API or have properties like minWidth added
> to Jewel that's totally fine. I don't think Basic should have it. There
> are lower cost ways of setting CSS already in Basic.
>
very interesting...about setStyle, what you have in mind? a method to set a
any style using "prop" and "value" as inputs?
let me know a bit more about this, can you put a method signature of what
you propose? this could be very convenient
thanks
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
> El vie., 11 ene. 2019 a las 20:59, Kessler CTR Mark J
> () escribió:
>
> > I'm slow getting to these emails, so if I've missed any, I apologize.
> >
> > After this last two weeks I've come to the realization that the
> FlexBox
> > CSS style is greatly more flexible(no pun intended twice) than most
> of what
> > we have in AS. I could write a pile of examples for most common
> layouts if
> > it had enough interest. These were styles I ended up assigning
> using CSS
> > selectors assigned to MXML via the className property. I could even
> fix
> > formatting issues I was having in Jewel by overriding the styles
> this way.
> >
> >
> > If you really wanted to use a max width without adding coding
> overhead to
> > the SDK you could just add in CSS file selector to use max-width.
> >
> >
> > .MyStyle
> > {
> >Max:width: 200px;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It would cut off any overflow by default. If you'd prefer you could
> use
> > the "flex-wrap: wrap" to have it wrap the children in the cross axis
> > direction.
> >
> > I'll have to add more to the email later on, but this part can go out
> > now. Could make a very large wiki page on layout in MXML with the
> flexbox
> > logic.
> >
> > -Mark K
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Carlos Rovira [mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:50 PM
> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
> > Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and
> need
> > in UIBase sizing
> >
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > thanks for joining to the discussion:
> >
> >
> > El jue., 10 ene. 2019 a las 20:31, Kessler CTR Mark J
> > () escribió:
> >
> > >
> > > Back on topic, I was able to avoid using max size declarations by
> adding
> > > in CSS to utilize the flex-box CSS alignments to fill and
> distribute
> > sizes.
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > Very interesting, could you provide some code example so I can
> understand
> > the concept? I'm interested in that
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
On 1/13/19, 4:12 AM, "Carlos Rovira" wrote:
*So, to refocus on the topic that open this thread. For me the decision is
about:*
*a) To use NaN in width and height, make this little change in setWidth to
be able to use NaN*
*this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(_width) ? "initial" : value.toString()
+ 'px'; *
*(don't see other way to deal with this)*
NaN may not be a legal value on some runtimes/platforms. I haven't followed
this part of the thread. What is the scenario? UIBase.width is a Number
because folks coming from Flex will expect it. The underlying CSS is a
separate issue, IMO.
*b) for max and min we can go with getter/setters baked in UIBase, or
create a Bead for each one.*
IMO, we have the width/height properties that just about everybody will need in
UIBase and everything else has to be added as a bead for PAYG reasons.
Remember that a top-level-component aggregates beads and proxies them to the
API surface, so it is up to the component set developers to decide which
properties to proxy. There is no requirement to create a bead for each
property, you can group them into a MinMaxWidthHeight bead or something like
that. It doesn't matter since different component sets can use different beads.
If you want to add a setStyle() API or have properties like minWidth added to
Jewel that's totally fine. I don't think Basic should have it. There are
lower cost ways of setting CSS already in Basic.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
Thoughts?
Carlos
El vie., 11 ene. 2019 a las 20:59, Kessler CTR Mark J
() escribió:
> I'm slow getting to these emails, so if I've missed any, I apologize.
>
> After this last two weeks I've come to the realization that the FlexBox
> CSS style is greatly more flexible(no pun intended twice) than most of
what
> we have in AS. I could write a pile of examples for most common layouts
if
> it had enough interest. These were styles I ended up assigning using CSS
> selectors assigned to MXML via the className property. I could even fix
> formatting issues I was having in Jewel by overriding the styles this way.
>
>
> If you really wanted to use a max width without adding coding overhead to
> the SDK you could just add in CSS file selector to use max-width.
>
>
> .MyStyle
> {
>Max:width: 200px;
> }
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It would cut off any overflow by default. If you'd prefer you could use
> the "flex-wrap: wrap" to have it wrap the children in the cross axis
> direction.
>
> I'll have to add more to the email later on, but this part can go out
> now. Could make a very large wiki page on layout in MXML with the flexbox
> logic.
>
> -Mark K
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Carlos Rovira [mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:50 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need
> in UIBase sizing
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> thanks for joining to the discussion:
>
>
> El jue., 10 ene. 2019 a las 20:31, Kessler CTR Mark J
> () escribió:
>
> >
> > Back on topic, I was able to avoid using max size declarations by
adding
> > in CSS to utilize the flex-box CSS alignments to fill and distribute
> sizes.
>
>
> >
>
> Very interesting, could you provide some code example so I can understand
> the concept? I'm interested in that technique
>
> thanks
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cbf26b57c45254489fc7c08d67950514e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636829783199266513sdata=cuqt%2Bt%2FmIi4b1O03TkrGCsAIy098RmBUkkrrMZ2FJ%2Fo%3Dreserved=0
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosroviradata=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cbf26b57c45254489fc7c08d67950514e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636829783199266513sdata=cuqt%2Bt%2FmIi4b1O03TkrGCsAIy098RmBUkkrrMZ2FJ%2Fo%3Dreserved=0
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
Hi Mark,
right, I was aware that I can do this in my App. But what I want to do with
this thread is to bring attention to our current "width" and "height"
implementation
I think we should have in some way or another a way to get things done in
AS3/MXML instead to go down and create and assign a CSS selector.
For me that's a workaround for Royale. Is a solution, but I expect that if
I need to set a "max width" in a component do this with a property or, if
we don't agree to add it to UIBase, create a Bead for that.
As you say CSS is very powerful, and I like it far more that CSS in Flex.
In fact I tried to create Jewel Layouts to leverage CSS as much as
possible. But the only problem is that CSS is somewhat separated from AS3,
so sometimes you need some control or some way to change things vía AS3 or
with a resize handler or something more programmatically. For that reason
we need both ways to do things.
*So, to refocus on the topic that open this thread. For me the decision is
about:*
*a) To use NaN in width and height, make this little change in setWidth to
be able to use NaN*
*this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(_width) ? "initial" : value.toString()
+ 'px'; *
*(don't see other way to deal with this)*
*b) for max and min we can go with getter/setters baked in UIBase, or
create a Bead for each one.*
Thoughts?
Carlos
El vie., 11 ene. 2019 a las 20:59, Kessler CTR Mark J
() escribió:
> I'm slow getting to these emails, so if I've missed any, I apologize.
>
> After this last two weeks I've come to the realization that the FlexBox
> CSS style is greatly more flexible(no pun intended twice) than most of what
> we have in AS. I could write a pile of examples for most common layouts if
> it had enough interest. These were styles I ended up assigning using CSS
> selectors assigned to MXML via the className property. I could even fix
> formatting issues I was having in Jewel by overriding the styles this way.
>
>
> If you really wanted to use a max width without adding coding overhead to
> the SDK you could just add in CSS file selector to use max-width.
>
>
> .MyStyle
> {
>Max:width: 200px;
> }
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It would cut off any overflow by default. If you'd prefer you could use
> the "flex-wrap: wrap" to have it wrap the children in the cross axis
> direction.
>
> I'll have to add more to the email later on, but this part can go out
> now. Could make a very large wiki page on layout in MXML with the flexbox
> logic.
>
> -Mark K
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Carlos Rovira [mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:50 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need
> in UIBase sizing
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> thanks for joining to the discussion:
>
>
> El jue., 10 ene. 2019 a las 20:31, Kessler CTR Mark J
> () escribió:
>
> >
> > Back on topic, I was able to avoid using max size declarations by adding
> > in CSS to utilize the flex-box CSS alignments to fill and distribute
> sizes.
>
>
> >
>
> Very interesting, could you provide some code example so I can understand
> the concept? I'm interested in that technique
>
> thanks
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
RE: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in UIBase sizing
I'm slow getting to these emails, so if I've missed any, I apologize.
After this last two weeks I've come to the realization that the FlexBox CSS
style is greatly more flexible(no pun intended twice) than most of what we have
in AS. I could write a pile of examples for most common layouts if it had
enough interest. These were styles I ended up assigning using CSS selectors
assigned to MXML via the className property. I could even fix formatting
issues I was having in Jewel by overriding the styles this way.
If you really wanted to use a max width without adding coding overhead to the
SDK you could just add in CSS file selector to use max-width.
.MyStyle
{
Max:width: 200px;
}
It would cut off any overflow by default. If you'd prefer you could use the
"flex-wrap: wrap" to have it wrap the children in the cross axis direction.
I'll have to add more to the email later on, but this part can go out now.
Could make a very large wiki page on layout in MXML with the flexbox logic.
-Mark K
-Original Message-
From: Carlos Rovira [mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2019 2:50 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: Things that we still doesn't have and need in
UIBase sizing
Hi Mark,
thanks for joining to the discussion:
El jue., 10 ene. 2019 a las 20:31, Kessler CTR Mark J
() escribió:
>
> Back on topic, I was able to avoid using max size declarations by adding
> in CSS to utilize the flex-box CSS alignments to fill and distribute sizes.
>
Very interesting, could you provide some code example so I can understand
the concept? I'm interested in that technique
thanks
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
