royale-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <>
Subject Re: [royale-asjs] branch develop updated: Fixes #258. But is that a proper fix?
Date Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:45:39 GMT
AIUI, the issue is how it is possible, if at all, to use position:absolute or position:relative
selectively in the DOM.  IIRC, it isn't a matter of creating a descendant selector for the
object you want to position, it is setting the position style on all of its parents without
affecting any other of the other children of those parents in the DOM that might not be expecting
position to be set.  Because position not only changes the position, but it seems to affect
what offsetWidth is of those parents.

I haven't looked at existing JS frameworks and successful JS websites.  Maybe position is
an "all-or-nothing" kind of choice.  You have to decide to use it and deal with setting position!=static
throughout the DOM, or use it in many places and pick a few offsetParents to base all of your
math on, or not use it all and rely on margins and padding and other tricks.   Note that Flex
does not support margins and Royale can, so maybe proper use of margin can eliminate some
of the reliance on x,y in Royale.

So it may be that we need different groups of beads to allow these three choices.  If you
choose position!=static you use a particular bead and it uses different handlers for x,y,width/height.
 And maybe we should make a "RelativeToMeBead" that you stick on a UI widget and all children
x,y is relative to that.

So maybe, Royale should provide choices.  What is really hard and not PAYG is trying to make
one method handle all of these situations.

Just thinking out loud,

On 6/11/18, 12:36 AM, "Harbs" <> wrote:

    We could always have a bead which sets:
    .foo *{
       position: static;
    To reset the defaults of all elements below “foo” to static.
    Of course to change it to something else, you’d need:
    .foo .baz{
       position: absolute;
    I’m not sure how well this would work with the Jewel layout beads. I’m not sure what
the specificity is on that.
    > On Jun 11, 2018, at 10:11 AM, Alex Harui <> wrote:
    > The emulation Application is based on Container and thus creates a Div.  It may not
stay that way, but we did it so that the SystemManager can parent the app like it does in
    > Feel free to commit the bead.  It won't hurt anything and some folks will be able
to use it.  I'm still wondering what the right answer is going to be for the emulation component
sets.  Or what to do if someone does have some part of the DOM that they do not want style.position
set.  There is no CSS way to specify "set style on all parents", AFAIK, which is would help
reduce side-effects.
    > Later,
    > -Alex
    > On 6/8/18, 9:02 AM, "Harbs" <> wrote:
    >> Interesting idea, but I thought there was concern about the global selector affecting
HTML around the app?
    >    Currently, we don’t have an Application class that attaches to regular divs
It always controls the body element. Since we control the whole page, it’s not a problem.
If we do get to the point where a Royale app can be injected into a random div, then setting
a global selector might be a problem if there’s other HTML which relies on static. We can
have heavier-duty beads to deal with setting relative positioning in those cases.
    >    Harbs

View raw message