You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> on 2019/12/18 22:32:32 UTC
how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Hi,
I think I had this issue at other time.
Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is configured to 100, so
in html this is:
<div style="width:100%"/>
then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
<div/>
In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but there's no way back
right?
we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
Or I'm missing something?
Thanks
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
after reading the rest of emails, I think there's a need that others can
express about this. So I'll bifurcate this thread to create a new one about
"High level abstraction vs specific patterns" as Alex propose. Although my
personal opinion is that we are not discussing the same. Hope that thread
will give a new reader something short with all the points discussed here
in order to give a personal opinion that helps us to know what way to
choose.
Thanks! :)
Carlos
El vie., 20 dic. 2019 a las 5:16, Greg Dove (<gr...@gmail.com>)
escribió:
> What other multitarget SDK's use NaN to unset dimensional Numbers?
>
> I did not mean this api or NaN as an assigned value specifically, I meant
> in general as a solution to the type of problem you mentioned about
> incompatible 'native' APIs between targets (assuming I guess that they
> can't be overridden and made to behave the same).
> Using constants in general is one way to keep meaning in the code and to
> abstract from 'different' literal values that provide the same behavior on
> different targets. Of course it does mean that if you use literal values,
> you would still need to differentiate for each target, so it's by no means
> a perfect solution.
>
> 'Constants don't work so well in MXML. You have to bind to them, or use
> the actual literal value.'
> It's kind of a side point, but I do have working compiler code locally
> (somewhere... I did this some time ago, but never quite got back to finish
> it completely) that converts constant bindings to inlined regular startup
> value assignments for primitive types (i.e. no longer as constant bindings
> for String, Number etc). I do intend to get back to that and add that when
> I get a chance (perhaps it should be opt-in).
>
> ' there has never been an intention to allow application developers to use
> NaN as a value set to those properties'
> You know that better than I do. I did not work on the original code, and I
> presume you did. But that intention was not clear to me from 'looking at
> the code' and the logic that already exists in it. I don't mind either way
> what actually happens, but I figured I should at least share my thoughts
> about what it looked like to me from simply looking at the existing code.
> Anyhow, as I said I will leave it to others to continue the discussion.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:19 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I have not used other frameworks. What other multitarget SDK's use NaN
> to
> > unset dimensional Numbers?
> >
> > Constants don't work so well in MXML. You have to bind to them, or use
> > the actual literal value.
> >
> > IMO, while NaN is an allowed value of percentWidth/explicitWidth, there
> > has never been an intention to allow application developers to use NaN
> as a
> > value set to those properties. UIBase does replicate the logic form Flex
> > that setting percentWidth sets explicitWidth to NaN and vice versa.
> > Supporting NaN as a set value would add more code to UIBase for what is
> not
> > a mainstream usage. We know we can solve this problem with a utils
> > function and that will be more PAYG and less likely to result in
> > implementation issues on future runtimes. The utils function would also
> > clear explicitWidth as well.
> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/19/19, 6:14 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > ' But the meaning of percentWidth=NaN is not clear. '
> > The way that seems usual in other multitarget sdks in this type of
> > situation is to 'abstract' the value being used instead of literal
> > NaN. We
> > could use a public static const for the 'unset' value and tell
> > developers
> > to use that. The name of that adds the semantic meaning to the code
> as
> > well. And it can be set up to cost nothing in release builds because
> of
> > inlining.
> > myComponent.percentWidth = DimensionConsts.PERCENT_VALUE_DISABLED;
> > It is more verbose for sure, but much clearer whether it might be -1
> > or NaN
> > for a specific target.
> >
> > I don't think that precludes providing other useful utility functions
> > which
> > might do different things (like unset size-To-Parent on both
> dimensions
> > internally)
> >
> > With the existing code it already assumes that NaN can be an assigned
> > value
> > for both our current targets.
> > So this seems like a bugfix to me, because if NaN is an expected
> > possible
> > value (and it seems to be because it is already being tested in both
> > targets), then setting width style to 'NaN%' is a bug in my view.
> > I'm just sharing what looks obvious to me - 'first glance'. So maybe
> I
> > am
> > missing some much deeper interpretation of all this. Anyhow, I will
> > leave
> > it to others to comment further.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > IMO, if the application developer is going to be encouraged to set
> > > foo.percentWidth=NaN in their code, we might have a hard time
> > implementing
> > > that on some future runtime that offers a percentWidth API but
> > doesn't
> > > support NaN. And then the app will not easily migrate to that
> future
> > > runtime. Flash is a clue. It is a different runtime and doesn't
> > support
> > > NaN as a value to width. Who knows that some future runtime will
> > require?
> > >
> > > The "meaning" of percentWidth=100 is pretty clear. It means you
> want
> > > something to stretch the width of its parent. But the meaning of
> > > percentWidth=NaN is not clear. That's why I keep focusing on what
> > the
> > > higher-level objective is, not the browser-specific way you want to
> > > accomplish that higher-level objective. I'm pretty sure the
> > higher-level
> > > objective is to switch a component from being sized to its parent
> to
> > being
> > > sized to its content. Please propose an API with a name that
> > describes
> > > that objective. Maybe something like
> > > org.apache.royale.utils.sizeToContent(child:IUIBase);
> > >
> > > I'd rather leave the topic of change events to another thread. I'd
> > prefer
> > > to try to get folks to agree that higher-level abstractions will
> > serve
> > > Royale better than replicating platform-specific patterns that we
> > can't
> > > guarantee will work on all platforms and that don't have a clear
> > meaning.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/19/19, 2:49 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On first glance, that for me that seems an regular bugfix,
> > because it
> > > looks
> > > to be fixing something not working that is intended to actually
> > work.
> > >
> > > I'd also wonder about the inconsistency between the two targets
> > for
> > > avoiding to dispatch events when the same value is set twice
> > (although
> > > the
> > > 'equals' trap for that will not catch NaNs).
> > > It is standard practice elsewhere I think to include this
> > avoidance in
> > > setters for anything that dispatches 'change' like events (so a
> > change
> > > is
> > > *really* a change).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:33 AM Carlos Rovira <
> > > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > I think what I want is not what you think I want :)
> > > >
> > > > "Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash
> > runtime"
> > > >
> > > > That will not happen. The actual code for "percentWidth":
> > > >
> > > > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > > > {
> > > > COMPILE::SWF {
> > > > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > > > return;
> > > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > > _percentWidth = value;
> > > > }
> > > > COMPILE::JS {
> > > > this._percentWidth = value;
> > > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > > }
> > > > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > The code I want in percentWidth:
> > > >
> > > > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > > > {
> > > > COMPILE::SWF {
> > > > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > > > return;
> > > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > > _percentWidth = value;
> > > > }
> > > > COMPILE::JS {
> > > > this._percentWidth = value;
> > > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> > value.toString()
> > > + '%';
> > > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > > }
> > > > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Do you see that this is not about the general/global Royale
> > API? is
> > > just a
> > > > fix for JS specific platform.
> > > > IOW, is just adding to "COMPILE::JS" the code "isNaN(value)
> ?
> > null
> > > : "
> > > >
> > > > So we are not baking any "behavior" or "particular semantic"
> in
> > > Royale
> > > > global code.
> > > >
> > > > Think in what I said in my latest email: "what happens in JS
> > if we
> > > pass NaN
> > > > to percentWidth"?
> > > > what value will be in "this.positioner.style.width" at the
> end
> > of the
> > > > method execution?
> > > >
> > > > Make more sense now?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 19:57, Alex Harui
> > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Carlos,
> > > > >
> > > > > The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to
> > NaN is
> > > not
> > > > > allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's
> > > requirements
> > > > be?
> > > > > Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by
> > deleting it,
> > > AFAICT,
> > > > > has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead
> > of
> > > sized to
> > > > > parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API
> > usage
> > > into
> > > > our
> > > > > base classes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but
> > please
> > > do not
> > > > > bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I
> > think
> > > I'll need
> > > > > to
> > > > > make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to
> be
> > able
> > > to do
> > > > so
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a
> > real
> > > value
> > > > > width
> > > > > can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the
> > code
> > > is not
> > > > > affected this way since is the standard in browsers:
> > setting
> > > style
> > > > > properties to null removes the property in all
> browsers.
> > If we
> > > set
> > > > > width to
> > > > > NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the problem could be that you're identifying
> > this case
> > > with a
> > > > > particular layout scenario of a concrete component.
> It's
> > not
> > > the
> > > > case,
> > > > > I
> > > > > found this issue other times when working on Royale,
> and
> > is
> > > not about
> > > > > to
> > > > > make a component to size as the parent or size as its
> > content,
> > > is
> > > > > about to
> > > > > allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found that need around three times working on
> ComboBox,
> > > DateField,
> > > > > and
> > > > > now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in
> > that
> > > concrete
> > > > > code,
> > > > > but I think is not the right solution to add code of
> > that kind
> > > in the
> > > > > framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact other users does not find this problem is
> maybe
> > that
> > > a part
> > > > > that
> > > > > we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to
> > that lower
> > > > level,
> > > > > is
> > > > > that me and you are the only ones working in components
> > most
> > > of the
> > > > > time,
> > > > > And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work
> with
> > css,
> > > layouts
> > > > > and
> > > > > other kind of visuals.
> > > > >
> > > > > The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not
> > the
> > > right one,
> > > > > since
> > > > > we end adding lots of code (override all that width and
> > height
> > > > > methods) for
> > > > > something that is just a particular JS case that all
> > users of
> > > UIBase
> > > > > should
> > > > > have available, and I'm afraid that some components
> that
> > are
> > > coming
> > > > > from
> > > > > other basic components (like Group or DataContiner)
> will
> > not
> > > have
> > > > that
> > > > > properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again)
> > to all
> > > that
> > > > > classes.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we
> > are not
> > > using
> > > > ok
> > > > > PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are
> > > interpreting PAYG
> > > > > not
> > > > > right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS
> > > platform
> > > > still
> > > > > not
> > > > > considered in Basic implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > After this explanation, do you still think I need to
> add
> > all
> > > that
> > > > code
> > > > > to
> > > > > StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add
> > directly to
> > > UIBase
> > > > > the NaN
> > > > > case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this
> > missing JS
> > > > > implementation?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks! :)
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlos
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui
> > > > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case"
> > someone
> > > wants to
> > > > > change
> > > > > > from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've
> > written
> > > lots of
> > > > > > FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just
> fine
> > > without that
> > > > > > change. That implies to me that this scenario is
> not a
> > > "standard
> > > > > case".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want to build that in as a standard case to
> > Jewel,
> > > that's
> > > > > fine.
> > > > > > Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If, over more years, we hear more folks with these
> > cases for
> > > Basic
> > > > > then we
> > > > > > can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably
> > just
> > > add a
> > > > > Utils
> > > > > > function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right
> > > thing". In
> > > > some
> > > > > > component sets, sizing to content might force a
> > measuring
> > > API to
> > > > > run, for
> > > > > > example.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or
> > "meaning"
> > > of some
> > > > > code so
> > > > > > that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into
> the
> > > framework.
> > > > > We want
> > > > > > the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes
> > > someday.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My perception for this particular case in the JS
> > > platform we
> > > > are
> > > > > > missing a
> > > > > > standard case.
> > > > > > To try to make a comparison is like if we could
> > add to
> > > an int
> > > > > var any
> > > > > > number except "0".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic
> > (and
> > > any
> > > > other
> > > > > set)
> > > > > > should need in some cases to remove width (so
> > browsers
> > > apply
> > > > the
> > > > > > default)
> > > > > > and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> > > > > > IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in
> all
> > > possible
> > > > > cases.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In other words we have in UIBase this code:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() +
> > '%';
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I tested UIBase with this change worked:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ?
> null :
> > > > > value.toString() +
> > > > > > 'px';
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's ok to do this change?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Carlos
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui
> > > > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > > > >)
> > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Basic has the most minimal support for changing
> > things.
> > > > > Supporting
> > > > > > change
> > > > > > > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the
> > most
> > > expected
> > > > > change
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > supported.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What is the "semantics" behind removing
> > percentWidth?
> > > That
> > > > > you want
> > > > > > > something to go back to sizing to its content?
> > One
> > > option is
> > > > > that
> > > > > > could be
> > > > > > > a utils function like
> > sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase)
> > > that
> > > > knows
> > > > > how to
> > > > > > > manipulate a particular component set's
> > widgets. What
> > > needs
> > > > > to be
> > > > > > done to
> > > > > > > a component might depend on the component set.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > > carlosrovira@apache.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I had this issue at other time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let's say we have a container where
> > percentWidth is
> > > > > configured
> > > > > > to 100,
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > in html this is:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <div style="width:100%"/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > then we need to remove style="width:100%"
> so
> > we
> > > end with:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <div/>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In royale we can do
> > container.percentWidth=100, but
> > > > > there's no
> > > > > > way back
> > > > > > > right?
> > > > > > > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or
> > > undefined.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or I'm missing something?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915474335&sdata=NwOqzkTYRBtUczCJdbrat0ns%2FooJQ1kwvZKf7%2FQOt%2Fw%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
What other multitarget SDK's use NaN to unset dimensional Numbers?
I did not mean this api or NaN as an assigned value specifically, I meant
in general as a solution to the type of problem you mentioned about
incompatible 'native' APIs between targets (assuming I guess that they
can't be overridden and made to behave the same).
Using constants in general is one way to keep meaning in the code and to
abstract from 'different' literal values that provide the same behavior on
different targets. Of course it does mean that if you use literal values,
you would still need to differentiate for each target, so it's by no means
a perfect solution.
'Constants don't work so well in MXML. You have to bind to them, or use
the actual literal value.'
It's kind of a side point, but I do have working compiler code locally
(somewhere... I did this some time ago, but never quite got back to finish
it completely) that converts constant bindings to inlined regular startup
value assignments for primitive types (i.e. no longer as constant bindings
for String, Number etc). I do intend to get back to that and add that when
I get a chance (perhaps it should be opt-in).
' there has never been an intention to allow application developers to use
NaN as a value set to those properties'
You know that better than I do. I did not work on the original code, and I
presume you did. But that intention was not clear to me from 'looking at
the code' and the logic that already exists in it. I don't mind either way
what actually happens, but I figured I should at least share my thoughts
about what it looked like to me from simply looking at the existing code.
Anyhow, as I said I will leave it to others to continue the discussion.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 4:19 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> I have not used other frameworks. What other multitarget SDK's use NaN to
> unset dimensional Numbers?
>
> Constants don't work so well in MXML. You have to bind to them, or use
> the actual literal value.
>
> IMO, while NaN is an allowed value of percentWidth/explicitWidth, there
> has never been an intention to allow application developers to use NaN as a
> value set to those properties. UIBase does replicate the logic form Flex
> that setting percentWidth sets explicitWidth to NaN and vice versa.
> Supporting NaN as a set value would add more code to UIBase for what is not
> a mainstream usage. We know we can solve this problem with a utils
> function and that will be more PAYG and less likely to result in
> implementation issues on future runtimes. The utils function would also
> clear explicitWidth as well.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/19/19, 6:14 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ' But the meaning of percentWidth=NaN is not clear. '
> The way that seems usual in other multitarget sdks in this type of
> situation is to 'abstract' the value being used instead of literal
> NaN. We
> could use a public static const for the 'unset' value and tell
> developers
> to use that. The name of that adds the semantic meaning to the code as
> well. And it can be set up to cost nothing in release builds because of
> inlining.
> myComponent.percentWidth = DimensionConsts.PERCENT_VALUE_DISABLED;
> It is more verbose for sure, but much clearer whether it might be -1
> or NaN
> for a specific target.
>
> I don't think that precludes providing other useful utility functions
> which
> might do different things (like unset size-To-Parent on both dimensions
> internally)
>
> With the existing code it already assumes that NaN can be an assigned
> value
> for both our current targets.
> So this seems like a bugfix to me, because if NaN is an expected
> possible
> value (and it seems to be because it is already being tested in both
> targets), then setting width style to 'NaN%' is a bug in my view.
> I'm just sharing what looks obvious to me - 'first glance'. So maybe I
> am
> missing some much deeper interpretation of all this. Anyhow, I will
> leave
> it to others to comment further.
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > IMO, if the application developer is going to be encouraged to set
> > foo.percentWidth=NaN in their code, we might have a hard time
> implementing
> > that on some future runtime that offers a percentWidth API but
> doesn't
> > support NaN. And then the app will not easily migrate to that future
> > runtime. Flash is a clue. It is a different runtime and doesn't
> support
> > NaN as a value to width. Who knows that some future runtime will
> require?
> >
> > The "meaning" of percentWidth=100 is pretty clear. It means you want
> > something to stretch the width of its parent. But the meaning of
> > percentWidth=NaN is not clear. That's why I keep focusing on what
> the
> > higher-level objective is, not the browser-specific way you want to
> > accomplish that higher-level objective. I'm pretty sure the
> higher-level
> > objective is to switch a component from being sized to its parent to
> being
> > sized to its content. Please propose an API with a name that
> describes
> > that objective. Maybe something like
> > org.apache.royale.utils.sizeToContent(child:IUIBase);
> >
> > I'd rather leave the topic of change events to another thread. I'd
> prefer
> > to try to get folks to agree that higher-level abstractions will
> serve
> > Royale better than replicating platform-specific patterns that we
> can't
> > guarantee will work on all platforms and that don't have a clear
> meaning.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/19/19, 2:49 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On first glance, that for me that seems an regular bugfix,
> because it
> > looks
> > to be fixing something not working that is intended to actually
> work.
> >
> > I'd also wonder about the inconsistency between the two targets
> for
> > avoiding to dispatch events when the same value is set twice
> (although
> > the
> > 'equals' trap for that will not catch NaNs).
> > It is standard practice elsewhere I think to include this
> avoidance in
> > setters for anything that dispatches 'change' like events (so a
> change
> > is
> > *really* a change).
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:33 AM Carlos Rovira <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > I think what I want is not what you think I want :)
> > >
> > > "Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash
> runtime"
> > >
> > > That will not happen. The actual code for "percentWidth":
> > >
> > > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > > {
> > > COMPILE::SWF {
> > > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > > return;
> > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > _percentWidth = value;
> > > }
> > > COMPILE::JS {
> > > this._percentWidth = value;
> > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > }
> > > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > > }
> > >
> > > The code I want in percentWidth:
> > >
> > > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > > {
> > > COMPILE::SWF {
> > > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > > return;
> > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > _percentWidth = value;
> > > }
> > > COMPILE::JS {
> > > this._percentWidth = value;
> > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> value.toString()
> > + '%';
> > > if (!isNaN(value))
> > > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > > }
> > > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > > }
> > >
> > > Do you see that this is not about the general/global Royale
> API? is
> > just a
> > > fix for JS specific platform.
> > > IOW, is just adding to "COMPILE::JS" the code "isNaN(value) ?
> null
> > : "
> > >
> > > So we are not baking any "behavior" or "particular semantic" in
> > Royale
> > > global code.
> > >
> > > Think in what I said in my latest email: "what happens in JS
> if we
> > pass NaN
> > > to percentWidth"?
> > > what value will be in "this.positioner.style.width" at the end
> of the
> > > method execution?
> > >
> > > Make more sense now?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 19:57, Alex Harui
> > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Carlos,
> > > >
> > > > The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to
> NaN is
> > not
> > > > allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's
> > requirements
> > > be?
> > > > Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by
> deleting it,
> > AFAICT,
> > > > has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead
> of
> > sized to
> > > > parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API
> usage
> > into
> > > our
> > > > base classes.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but
> please
> > do not
> > > > bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I
> think
> > I'll need
> > > > to
> > > > make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be
> able
> > to do
> > > so
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a
> real
> > value
> > > > width
> > > > can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the
> code
> > is not
> > > > affected this way since is the standard in browsers:
> setting
> > style
> > > > properties to null removes the property in all browsers.
> If we
> > set
> > > > width to
> > > > NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
> > > >
> > > > I think the problem could be that you're identifying
> this case
> > with a
> > > > particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's
> not
> > the
> > > case,
> > > > I
> > > > found this issue other times when working on Royale, and
> is
> > not about
> > > > to
> > > > make a component to size as the parent or size as its
> content,
> > is
> > > > about to
> > > > allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
> > > >
> > > > I found that need around three times working on ComboBox,
> > DateField,
> > > > and
> > > > now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in
> that
> > concrete
> > > > code,
> > > > but I think is not the right solution to add code of
> that kind
> > in the
> > > > framework.
> > > >
> > > > The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe
> that
> > a part
> > > > that
> > > > we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to
> that lower
> > > level,
> > > > is
> > > > that me and you are the only ones working in components
> most
> > of the
> > > > time,
> > > > And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with
> css,
> > layouts
> > > > and
> > > > other kind of visuals.
> > > >
> > > > The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not
> the
> > right one,
> > > > since
> > > > we end adding lots of code (override all that width and
> height
> > > > methods) for
> > > > something that is just a particular JS case that all
> users of
> > UIBase
> > > > should
> > > > have available, and I'm afraid that some components that
> are
> > coming
> > > > from
> > > > other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will
> not
> > have
> > > that
> > > > properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again)
> to all
> > that
> > > > classes.
> > > >
> > > > I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we
> are not
> > using
> > > ok
> > > > PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are
> > interpreting PAYG
> > > > not
> > > > right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS
> > platform
> > > still
> > > > not
> > > > considered in Basic implementation.
> > > >
> > > > After this explanation, do you still think I need to add
> all
> > that
> > > code
> > > > to
> > > > StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add
> directly to
> > UIBase
> > > > the NaN
> > > > case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this
> missing JS
> > > > implementation?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks! :)
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui
> > > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case"
> someone
> > wants to
> > > > change
> > > > > from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've
> written
> > lots of
> > > > > FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine
> > without that
> > > > > change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a
> > "standard
> > > > case".
> > > > >
> > > > > If you want to build that in as a standard case to
> Jewel,
> > that's
> > > > fine.
> > > > > Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
> > > > >
> > > > > If, over more years, we hear more folks with these
> cases for
> > Basic
> > > > then we
> > > > > can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably
> just
> > add a
> > > > Utils
> > > > > function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right
> > thing". In
> > > some
> > > > > component sets, sizing to content might force a
> measuring
> > API to
> > > > run, for
> > > > > example.
> > > > >
> > > > > IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or
> "meaning"
> > of some
> > > > code so
> > > > > that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the
> > framework.
> > > > We want
> > > > > the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes
> > someday.
> > > > >
> > > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > My perception for this particular case in the JS
> > platform we
> > > are
> > > > > missing a
> > > > > standard case.
> > > > > To try to make a comparison is like if we could
> add to
> > an int
> > > > var any
> > > > > number except "0".
> > > > >
> > > > > IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic
> (and
> > any
> > > other
> > > > set)
> > > > > should need in some cases to remove width (so
> browsers
> > apply
> > > the
> > > > > default)
> > > > > and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> > > > > IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all
> > possible
> > > > cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words we have in UIBase this code:
> > > > >
> > > > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() +
> '%';
> > > > >
> > > > > I tested UIBase with this change worked:
> > > > >
> > > > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> > > > value.toString() +
> > > > > 'px';
> > > > >
> > > > > It's ok to do this change?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Carlos
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui
> > > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > > >)
> > > > > escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Basic has the most minimal support for changing
> things.
> > > > Supporting
> > > > > change
> > > > > > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the
> most
> > expected
> > > > change
> > > > > are
> > > > > > supported.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is the "semantics" behind removing
> percentWidth?
> > That
> > > > you want
> > > > > > something to go back to sizing to its content?
> One
> > option is
> > > > that
> > > > > could be
> > > > > > a utils function like
> sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase)
> > that
> > > knows
> > > > how to
> > > > > > manipulate a particular component set's
> widgets. What
> > needs
> > > > to be
> > > > > done to
> > > > > > a component might depend on the component set.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > > > -Alex
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > > carlosrovira@apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I had this issue at other time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's say we have a container where
> percentWidth is
> > > > configured
> > > > > to 100,
> > > > > > so
> > > > > > in html this is:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <div style="width:100%"/>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so
> we
> > end with:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <div/>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In royale we can do
> container.percentWidth=100, but
> > > > there's no
> > > > > way back
> > > > > > right?
> > > > > > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or
> > undefined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or I'm missing something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915474335&sdata=NwOqzkTYRBtUczCJdbrat0ns%2FooJQ1kwvZKf7%2FQOt%2Fw%3D&reserved=0
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
I have not used other frameworks. What other multitarget SDK's use NaN to unset dimensional Numbers?
Constants don't work so well in MXML. You have to bind to them, or use the actual literal value.
IMO, while NaN is an allowed value of percentWidth/explicitWidth, there has never been an intention to allow application developers to use NaN as a value set to those properties. UIBase does replicate the logic form Flex that setting percentWidth sets explicitWidth to NaN and vice versa. Supporting NaN as a set value would add more code to UIBase for what is not a mainstream usage. We know we can solve this problem with a utils function and that will be more PAYG and less likely to result in implementation issues on future runtimes. The utils function would also clear explicitWidth as well.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 12/19/19, 6:14 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
' But the meaning of percentWidth=NaN is not clear. '
The way that seems usual in other multitarget sdks in this type of
situation is to 'abstract' the value being used instead of literal NaN. We
could use a public static const for the 'unset' value and tell developers
to use that. The name of that adds the semantic meaning to the code as
well. And it can be set up to cost nothing in release builds because of
inlining.
myComponent.percentWidth = DimensionConsts.PERCENT_VALUE_DISABLED;
It is more verbose for sure, but much clearer whether it might be -1 or NaN
for a specific target.
I don't think that precludes providing other useful utility functions which
might do different things (like unset size-To-Parent on both dimensions
internally)
With the existing code it already assumes that NaN can be an assigned value
for both our current targets.
So this seems like a bugfix to me, because if NaN is an expected possible
value (and it seems to be because it is already being tested in both
targets), then setting width style to 'NaN%' is a bug in my view.
I'm just sharing what looks obvious to me - 'first glance'. So maybe I am
missing some much deeper interpretation of all this. Anyhow, I will leave
it to others to comment further.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> IMO, if the application developer is going to be encouraged to set
> foo.percentWidth=NaN in their code, we might have a hard time implementing
> that on some future runtime that offers a percentWidth API but doesn't
> support NaN. And then the app will not easily migrate to that future
> runtime. Flash is a clue. It is a different runtime and doesn't support
> NaN as a value to width. Who knows that some future runtime will require?
>
> The "meaning" of percentWidth=100 is pretty clear. It means you want
> something to stretch the width of its parent. But the meaning of
> percentWidth=NaN is not clear. That's why I keep focusing on what the
> higher-level objective is, not the browser-specific way you want to
> accomplish that higher-level objective. I'm pretty sure the higher-level
> objective is to switch a component from being sized to its parent to being
> sized to its content. Please propose an API with a name that describes
> that objective. Maybe something like
> org.apache.royale.utils.sizeToContent(child:IUIBase);
>
> I'd rather leave the topic of change events to another thread. I'd prefer
> to try to get folks to agree that higher-level abstractions will serve
> Royale better than replicating platform-specific patterns that we can't
> guarantee will work on all platforms and that don't have a clear meaning.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/19/19, 2:49 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On first glance, that for me that seems an regular bugfix, because it
> looks
> to be fixing something not working that is intended to actually work.
>
> I'd also wonder about the inconsistency between the two targets for
> avoiding to dispatch events when the same value is set twice (although
> the
> 'equals' trap for that will not catch NaNs).
> It is standard practice elsewhere I think to include this avoidance in
> setters for anything that dispatches 'change' like events (so a change
> is
> *really* a change).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:33 AM Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I think what I want is not what you think I want :)
> >
> > "Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash runtime"
> >
> > That will not happen. The actual code for "percentWidth":
> >
> > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > {
> > COMPILE::SWF {
> > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > return;
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > _percentWidth = value;
> > }
> > COMPILE::JS {
> > this._percentWidth = value;
> > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > }
> > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > }
> >
> > The code I want in percentWidth:
> >
> > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > {
> > COMPILE::SWF {
> > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > return;
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > _percentWidth = value;
> > }
> > COMPILE::JS {
> > this._percentWidth = value;
> > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString()
> + '%';
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > }
> > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > }
> >
> > Do you see that this is not about the general/global Royale API? is
> just a
> > fix for JS specific platform.
> > IOW, is just adding to "COMPILE::JS" the code "isNaN(value) ? null
> : "
> >
> > So we are not baking any "behavior" or "particular semantic" in
> Royale
> > global code.
> >
> > Think in what I said in my latest email: "what happens in JS if we
> pass NaN
> > to percentWidth"?
> > what value will be in "this.positioner.style.width" at the end of the
> > method execution?
> >
> > Make more sense now?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 19:57, Alex Harui
> (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to NaN is
> not
> > > allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's
> requirements
> > be?
> > > Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by deleting it,
> AFAICT,
> > > has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead of
> sized to
> > > parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API usage
> into
> > our
> > > base classes.
> > >
> > > Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but please
> do not
> > > bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I think
> I'll need
> > > to
> > > make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be able
> to do
> > so
> > >
> > > Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a real
> value
> > > width
> > > can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the code
> is not
> > > affected this way since is the standard in browsers: setting
> style
> > > properties to null removes the property in all browsers. If we
> set
> > > width to
> > > NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
> > >
> > > I think the problem could be that you're identifying this case
> with a
> > > particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's not
> the
> > case,
> > > I
> > > found this issue other times when working on Royale, and is
> not about
> > > to
> > > make a component to size as the parent or size as its content,
> is
> > > about to
> > > allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
> > >
> > > I found that need around three times working on ComboBox,
> DateField,
> > > and
> > > now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in that
> concrete
> > > code,
> > > but I think is not the right solution to add code of that kind
> in the
> > > framework.
> > >
> > > The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe that
> a part
> > > that
> > > we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to that lower
> > level,
> > > is
> > > that me and you are the only ones working in components most
> of the
> > > time,
> > > And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with css,
> layouts
> > > and
> > > other kind of visuals.
> > >
> > > The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not the
> right one,
> > > since
> > > we end adding lots of code (override all that width and height
> > > methods) for
> > > something that is just a particular JS case that all users of
> UIBase
> > > should
> > > have available, and I'm afraid that some components that are
> coming
> > > from
> > > other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will not
> have
> > that
> > > properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again) to all
> that
> > > classes.
> > >
> > > I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we are not
> using
> > ok
> > > PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are
> interpreting PAYG
> > > not
> > > right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS
> platform
> > still
> > > not
> > > considered in Basic implementation.
> > >
> > > After this explanation, do you still think I need to add all
> that
> > code
> > > to
> > > StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add directly to
> UIBase
> > > the NaN
> > > case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this missing JS
> > > implementation?
> > >
> > > Thanks! :)
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui
> > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone
> wants to
> > > change
> > > > from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written
> lots of
> > > > FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine
> without that
> > > > change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a
> "standard
> > > case".
> > > >
> > > > If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel,
> that's
> > > fine.
> > > > Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
> > > >
> > > > If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for
> Basic
> > > then we
> > > > can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just
> add a
> > > Utils
> > > > function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right
> thing". In
> > some
> > > > component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring
> API to
> > > run, for
> > > > example.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning"
> of some
> > > code so
> > > > that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the
> framework.
> > > We want
> > > > the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes
> someday.
> > > >
> > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > My perception for this particular case in the JS
> platform we
> > are
> > > > missing a
> > > > standard case.
> > > > To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to
> an int
> > > var any
> > > > number except "0".
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and
> any
> > other
> > > set)
> > > > should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers
> apply
> > the
> > > > default)
> > > > and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> > > > IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all
> possible
> > > cases.
> > > >
> > > > In other words we have in UIBase this code:
> > > >
> > > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > > >
> > > > I tested UIBase with this change worked:
> > > >
> > > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> > > value.toString() +
> > > > 'px';
> > > >
> > > > It's ok to do this change?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui
> > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > >)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Basic has the most minimal support for changing things.
> > > Supporting
> > > > change
> > > > > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most
> expected
> > > change
> > > > are
> > > > > supported.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth?
> That
> > > you want
> > > > > something to go back to sizing to its content? One
> option is
> > > that
> > > > could be
> > > > > a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase)
> that
> > knows
> > > how to
> > > > > manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What
> needs
> > > to be
> > > > done to
> > > > > a component might depend on the component set.
> > > > >
> > > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I had this issue at other time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is
> > > configured
> > > > to 100,
> > > > > so
> > > > > in html this is:
> > > > >
> > > > > <div style="width:100%"/>
> > > > >
> > > > > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we
> end with:
> > > > >
> > > > > <div/>
> > > > >
> > > > > In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but
> > > there's no
> > > > way back
> > > > > right?
> > > > > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or
> undefined.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or I'm missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915474335&sdata=NwOqzkTYRBtUczCJdbrat0ns%2FooJQ1kwvZKf7%2FQOt%2Fw%3D&reserved=0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C495907a289f44b5fd9d908d784f2647e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637124048915484317&sdata=BSw0%2FIs94ziSfk%2Fe1xm%2BH6loda9pQTzxWtMVEWPOWLY%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
' But the meaning of percentWidth=NaN is not clear. '
The way that seems usual in other multitarget sdks in this type of
situation is to 'abstract' the value being used instead of literal NaN. We
could use a public static const for the 'unset' value and tell developers
to use that. The name of that adds the semantic meaning to the code as
well. And it can be set up to cost nothing in release builds because of
inlining.
myComponent.percentWidth = DimensionConsts.PERCENT_VALUE_DISABLED;
It is more verbose for sure, but much clearer whether it might be -1 or NaN
for a specific target.
I don't think that precludes providing other useful utility functions which
might do different things (like unset size-To-Parent on both dimensions
internally)
With the existing code it already assumes that NaN can be an assigned value
for both our current targets.
So this seems like a bugfix to me, because if NaN is an expected possible
value (and it seems to be because it is already being tested in both
targets), then setting width style to 'NaN%' is a bug in my view.
I'm just sharing what looks obvious to me - 'first glance'. So maybe I am
missing some much deeper interpretation of all this. Anyhow, I will leave
it to others to comment further.
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 1:35 PM Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid> wrote:
> IMO, if the application developer is going to be encouraged to set
> foo.percentWidth=NaN in their code, we might have a hard time implementing
> that on some future runtime that offers a percentWidth API but doesn't
> support NaN. And then the app will not easily migrate to that future
> runtime. Flash is a clue. It is a different runtime and doesn't support
> NaN as a value to width. Who knows that some future runtime will require?
>
> The "meaning" of percentWidth=100 is pretty clear. It means you want
> something to stretch the width of its parent. But the meaning of
> percentWidth=NaN is not clear. That's why I keep focusing on what the
> higher-level objective is, not the browser-specific way you want to
> accomplish that higher-level objective. I'm pretty sure the higher-level
> objective is to switch a component from being sized to its parent to being
> sized to its content. Please propose an API with a name that describes
> that objective. Maybe something like
> org.apache.royale.utils.sizeToContent(child:IUIBase);
>
> I'd rather leave the topic of change events to another thread. I'd prefer
> to try to get folks to agree that higher-level abstractions will serve
> Royale better than replicating platform-specific patterns that we can't
> guarantee will work on all platforms and that don't have a clear meaning.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/19/19, 2:49 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On first glance, that for me that seems an regular bugfix, because it
> looks
> to be fixing something not working that is intended to actually work.
>
> I'd also wonder about the inconsistency between the two targets for
> avoiding to dispatch events when the same value is set twice (although
> the
> 'equals' trap for that will not catch NaNs).
> It is standard practice elsewhere I think to include this avoidance in
> setters for anything that dispatches 'change' like events (so a change
> is
> *really* a change).
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:33 AM Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I think what I want is not what you think I want :)
> >
> > "Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash runtime"
> >
> > That will not happen. The actual code for "percentWidth":
> >
> > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > {
> > COMPILE::SWF {
> > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > return;
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > _percentWidth = value;
> > }
> > COMPILE::JS {
> > this._percentWidth = value;
> > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > }
> > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > }
> >
> > The code I want in percentWidth:
> >
> > public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> > {
> > COMPILE::SWF {
> > if (_percentWidth == value)
> > return;
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > _explicitWidth = NaN;
> > _percentWidth = value;
> > }
> > COMPILE::JS {
> > this._percentWidth = value;
> > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString()
> + '%';
> > if (!isNaN(value))
> > this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> > }
> > dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> > }
> >
> > Do you see that this is not about the general/global Royale API? is
> just a
> > fix for JS specific platform.
> > IOW, is just adding to "COMPILE::JS" the code "isNaN(value) ? null
> : "
> >
> > So we are not baking any "behavior" or "particular semantic" in
> Royale
> > global code.
> >
> > Think in what I said in my latest email: "what happens in JS if we
> pass NaN
> > to percentWidth"?
> > what value will be in "this.positioner.style.width" at the end of the
> > method execution?
> >
> > Make more sense now?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 19:57, Alex Harui
> (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Carlos,
> > >
> > > The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to NaN is
> not
> > > allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's
> requirements
> > be?
> > > Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by deleting it,
> AFAICT,
> > > has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead of
> sized to
> > > parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API usage
> into
> > our
> > > base classes.
> > >
> > > Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but please
> do not
> > > bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I think
> I'll need
> > > to
> > > make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be able
> to do
> > so
> > >
> > > Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a real
> value
> > > width
> > > can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the code
> is not
> > > affected this way since is the standard in browsers: setting
> style
> > > properties to null removes the property in all browsers. If we
> set
> > > width to
> > > NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
> > >
> > > I think the problem could be that you're identifying this case
> with a
> > > particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's not
> the
> > case,
> > > I
> > > found this issue other times when working on Royale, and is
> not about
> > > to
> > > make a component to size as the parent or size as its content,
> is
> > > about to
> > > allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
> > >
> > > I found that need around three times working on ComboBox,
> DateField,
> > > and
> > > now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in that
> concrete
> > > code,
> > > but I think is not the right solution to add code of that kind
> in the
> > > framework.
> > >
> > > The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe that
> a part
> > > that
> > > we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to that lower
> > level,
> > > is
> > > that me and you are the only ones working in components most
> of the
> > > time,
> > > And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with css,
> layouts
> > > and
> > > other kind of visuals.
> > >
> > > The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not the
> right one,
> > > since
> > > we end adding lots of code (override all that width and height
> > > methods) for
> > > something that is just a particular JS case that all users of
> UIBase
> > > should
> > > have available, and I'm afraid that some components that are
> coming
> > > from
> > > other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will not
> have
> > that
> > > properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again) to all
> that
> > > classes.
> > >
> > > I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we are not
> using
> > ok
> > > PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are
> interpreting PAYG
> > > not
> > > right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS
> platform
> > still
> > > not
> > > considered in Basic implementation.
> > >
> > > After this explanation, do you still think I need to add all
> that
> > code
> > > to
> > > StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add directly to
> UIBase
> > > the NaN
> > > case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this missing JS
> > > implementation?
> > >
> > > Thanks! :)
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui
> > > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone
> wants to
> > > change
> > > > from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written
> lots of
> > > > FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine
> without that
> > > > change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a
> "standard
> > > case".
> > > >
> > > > If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel,
> that's
> > > fine.
> > > > Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
> > > >
> > > > If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for
> Basic
> > > then we
> > > > can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just
> add a
> > > Utils
> > > > function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right
> thing". In
> > some
> > > > component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring
> API to
> > > run, for
> > > > example.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning"
> of some
> > > code so
> > > > that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the
> framework.
> > > We want
> > > > the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes
> someday.
> > > >
> > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > > My perception for this particular case in the JS
> platform we
> > are
> > > > missing a
> > > > standard case.
> > > > To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to
> an int
> > > var any
> > > > number except "0".
> > > >
> > > > IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and
> any
> > other
> > > set)
> > > > should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers
> apply
> > the
> > > > default)
> > > > and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> > > > IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all
> possible
> > > cases.
> > > >
> > > > In other words we have in UIBase this code:
> > > >
> > > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > > >
> > > > I tested UIBase with this change worked:
> > > >
> > > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> > > value.toString() +
> > > > 'px';
> > > >
> > > > It's ok to do this change?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Carlos
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui
> > > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > > >)
> > > > escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > Basic has the most minimal support for changing things.
> > > Supporting
> > > > change
> > > > > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most
> expected
> > > change
> > > > are
> > > > > supported.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth?
> That
> > > you want
> > > > > something to go back to sizing to its content? One
> option is
> > > that
> > > > could be
> > > > > a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase)
> that
> > knows
> > > how to
> > > > > manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What
> needs
> > > to be
> > > > done to
> > > > > a component might depend on the component set.
> > > > >
> > > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > > -Alex
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> > carlosrovira@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I had this issue at other time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is
> > > configured
> > > > to 100,
> > > > > so
> > > > > in html this is:
> > > > >
> > > > > <div style="width:100%"/>
> > > > >
> > > > > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we
> end with:
> > > > >
> > > > > <div/>
> > > > >
> > > > > In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but
> > > there's no
> > > > way back
> > > > > right?
> > > > > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or
> undefined.
> > > > >
> > > > > Or I'm missing something?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
>
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
IMO, if the application developer is going to be encouraged to set foo.percentWidth=NaN in their code, we might have a hard time implementing that on some future runtime that offers a percentWidth API but doesn't support NaN. And then the app will not easily migrate to that future runtime. Flash is a clue. It is a different runtime and doesn't support NaN as a value to width. Who knows that some future runtime will require?
The "meaning" of percentWidth=100 is pretty clear. It means you want something to stretch the width of its parent. But the meaning of percentWidth=NaN is not clear. That's why I keep focusing on what the higher-level objective is, not the browser-specific way you want to accomplish that higher-level objective. I'm pretty sure the higher-level objective is to switch a component from being sized to its parent to being sized to its content. Please propose an API with a name that describes that objective. Maybe something like org.apache.royale.utils.sizeToContent(child:IUIBase);
I'd rather leave the topic of change events to another thread. I'd prefer to try to get folks to agree that higher-level abstractions will serve Royale better than replicating platform-specific patterns that we can't guarantee will work on all platforms and that don't have a clear meaning.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 12/19/19, 2:49 PM, "Greg Dove" <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On first glance, that for me that seems an regular bugfix, because it looks
to be fixing something not working that is intended to actually work.
I'd also wonder about the inconsistency between the two targets for
avoiding to dispatch events when the same value is set twice (although the
'equals' trap for that will not catch NaNs).
It is standard practice elsewhere I think to include this avoidance in
setters for anything that dispatches 'change' like events (so a change is
*really* a change).
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:33 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I think what I want is not what you think I want :)
>
> "Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash runtime"
>
> That will not happen. The actual code for "percentWidth":
>
> public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> {
> COMPILE::SWF {
> if (_percentWidth == value)
> return;
> if (!isNaN(value))
> _explicitWidth = NaN;
> _percentWidth = value;
> }
> COMPILE::JS {
> this._percentWidth = value;
> this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> if (!isNaN(value))
> this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> }
> dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> }
>
> The code I want in percentWidth:
>
> public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> {
> COMPILE::SWF {
> if (_percentWidth == value)
> return;
> if (!isNaN(value))
> _explicitWidth = NaN;
> _percentWidth = value;
> }
> COMPILE::JS {
> this._percentWidth = value;
> this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString() + '%';
> if (!isNaN(value))
> this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> }
> dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> }
>
> Do you see that this is not about the general/global Royale API? is just a
> fix for JS specific platform.
> IOW, is just adding to "COMPILE::JS" the code "isNaN(value) ? null : "
>
> So we are not baking any "behavior" or "particular semantic" in Royale
> global code.
>
> Think in what I said in my latest email: "what happens in JS if we pass NaN
> to percentWidth"?
> what value will be in "this.positioner.style.width" at the end of the
> method execution?
>
> Make more sense now?
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 19:57, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> escribió:
>
> > Carlos,
> >
> > The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not
> > allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's requirements
> be?
> > Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by deleting it, AFAICT,
> > has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead of sized to
> > parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API usage into
> our
> > base classes.
> >
> > Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but please do not
> > bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I think I'll need
> > to
> > make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be able to do
> so
> >
> > Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a real value
> > width
> > can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the code is not
> > affected this way since is the standard in browsers: setting style
> > properties to null removes the property in all browsers. If we set
> > width to
> > NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
> >
> > I think the problem could be that you're identifying this case with a
> > particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's not the
> case,
> > I
> > found this issue other times when working on Royale, and is not about
> > to
> > make a component to size as the parent or size as its content, is
> > about to
> > allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
> >
> > I found that need around three times working on ComboBox, DateField,
> > and
> > now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in that concrete
> > code,
> > but I think is not the right solution to add code of that kind in the
> > framework.
> >
> > The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe that a part
> > that
> > we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to that lower
> level,
> > is
> > that me and you are the only ones working in components most of the
> > time,
> > And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with css, layouts
> > and
> > other kind of visuals.
> >
> > The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not the right one,
> > since
> > we end adding lots of code (override all that width and height
> > methods) for
> > something that is just a particular JS case that all users of UIBase
> > should
> > have available, and I'm afraid that some components that are coming
> > from
> > other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will not have
> that
> > properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again) to all that
> > classes.
> >
> > I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we are not using
> ok
> > PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are interpreting PAYG
> > not
> > right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS platform
> still
> > not
> > considered in Basic implementation.
> >
> > After this explanation, do you still think I need to add all that
> code
> > to
> > StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add directly to UIBase
> > the NaN
> > case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this missing JS
> > implementation?
> >
> > Thanks! :)
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui
> > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone wants to
> > change
> > > from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written lots of
> > > FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine without that
> > > change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a "standard
> > case".
> > >
> > > If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel, that's
> > fine.
> > > Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
> > >
> > > If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for Basic
> > then we
> > > can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just add a
> > Utils
> > > function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right thing". In
> some
> > > component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring API to
> > run, for
> > > example.
> > >
> > > IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning" of some
> > code so
> > > that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the framework.
> > We want
> > > the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes someday.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > My perception for this particular case in the JS platform we
> are
> > > missing a
> > > standard case.
> > > To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to an int
> > var any
> > > number except "0".
> > >
> > > IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and any
> other
> > set)
> > > should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers apply
> the
> > > default)
> > > and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> > > IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all possible
> > cases.
> > >
> > > In other words we have in UIBase this code:
> > >
> > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > >
> > > I tested UIBase with this change worked:
> > >
> > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> > value.toString() +
> > > 'px';
> > >
> > > It's ok to do this change?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui
> > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > >)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Basic has the most minimal support for changing things.
> > Supporting
> > > change
> > > > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected
> > change
> > > are
> > > > supported.
> > > >
> > > > What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That
> > you want
> > > > something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is
> > that
> > > could be
> > > > a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that
> knows
> > how to
> > > > manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs
> > to be
> > > done to
> > > > a component might depend on the component set.
> > > >
> > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I think I had this issue at other time.
> > > >
> > > > Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is
> > configured
> > > to 100,
> > > > so
> > > > in html this is:
> > > >
> > > > <div style="width:100%"/>
> > > >
> > > > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
> > > >
> > > > <div/>
> > > >
> > > > In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but
> > there's no
> > > way back
> > > > right?
> > > > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
> > > >
> > > > Or I'm missing something?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C551349074ae449da54d208d784d5a24f%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123925400766590&sdata=O%2BUBPX6gPgjKeehz8Od5Ony2u1jtCHNDS1z2ExRWjEw%3D&reserved=0
>
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Greg Dove <gr...@gmail.com>.
On first glance, that for me that seems an regular bugfix, because it looks
to be fixing something not working that is intended to actually work.
I'd also wonder about the inconsistency between the two targets for
avoiding to dispatch events when the same value is set twice (although the
'equals' trap for that will not catch NaNs).
It is standard practice elsewhere I think to include this avoidance in
setters for anything that dispatches 'change' like events (so a change is
*really* a change).
On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 11:33 AM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> I think what I want is not what you think I want :)
>
> "Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash runtime"
>
> That will not happen. The actual code for "percentWidth":
>
> public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> {
> COMPILE::SWF {
> if (_percentWidth == value)
> return;
> if (!isNaN(value))
> _explicitWidth = NaN;
> _percentWidth = value;
> }
> COMPILE::JS {
> this._percentWidth = value;
> this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> if (!isNaN(value))
> this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> }
> dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> }
>
> The code I want in percentWidth:
>
> public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
> {
> COMPILE::SWF {
> if (_percentWidth == value)
> return;
> if (!isNaN(value))
> _explicitWidth = NaN;
> _percentWidth = value;
> }
> COMPILE::JS {
> this._percentWidth = value;
> this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString() + '%';
> if (!isNaN(value))
> this._explicitWidth = NaN;
> }
> dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
> }
>
> Do you see that this is not about the general/global Royale API? is just a
> fix for JS specific platform.
> IOW, is just adding to "COMPILE::JS" the code "isNaN(value) ? null : "
>
> So we are not baking any "behavior" or "particular semantic" in Royale
> global code.
>
> Think in what I said in my latest email: "what happens in JS if we pass NaN
> to percentWidth"?
> what value will be in "this.positioner.style.width" at the end of the
> method execution?
>
> Make more sense now?
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 19:57, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> escribió:
>
> > Carlos,
> >
> > The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not
> > allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's requirements
> be?
> > Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by deleting it, AFAICT,
> > has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead of sized to
> > parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API usage into
> our
> > base classes.
> >
> > Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but please do not
> > bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I think I'll need
> > to
> > make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be able to do
> so
> >
> > Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a real value
> > width
> > can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the code is not
> > affected this way since is the standard in browsers: setting style
> > properties to null removes the property in all browsers. If we set
> > width to
> > NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
> >
> > I think the problem could be that you're identifying this case with a
> > particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's not the
> case,
> > I
> > found this issue other times when working on Royale, and is not about
> > to
> > make a component to size as the parent or size as its content, is
> > about to
> > allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
> >
> > I found that need around three times working on ComboBox, DateField,
> > and
> > now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in that concrete
> > code,
> > but I think is not the right solution to add code of that kind in the
> > framework.
> >
> > The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe that a part
> > that
> > we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to that lower
> level,
> > is
> > that me and you are the only ones working in components most of the
> > time,
> > And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with css, layouts
> > and
> > other kind of visuals.
> >
> > The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not the right one,
> > since
> > we end adding lots of code (override all that width and height
> > methods) for
> > something that is just a particular JS case that all users of UIBase
> > should
> > have available, and I'm afraid that some components that are coming
> > from
> > other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will not have
> that
> > properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again) to all that
> > classes.
> >
> > I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we are not using
> ok
> > PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are interpreting PAYG
> > not
> > right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS platform
> still
> > not
> > considered in Basic implementation.
> >
> > After this explanation, do you still think I need to add all that
> code
> > to
> > StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add directly to UIBase
> > the NaN
> > case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this missing JS
> > implementation?
> >
> > Thanks! :)
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui
> > (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone wants to
> > change
> > > from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written lots of
> > > FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine without that
> > > change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a "standard
> > case".
> > >
> > > If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel, that's
> > fine.
> > > Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
> > >
> > > If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for Basic
> > then we
> > > can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just add a
> > Utils
> > > function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right thing". In
> some
> > > component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring API to
> > run, for
> > > example.
> > >
> > > IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning" of some
> > code so
> > > that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the framework.
> > We want
> > > the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes someday.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > > My perception for this particular case in the JS platform we
> are
> > > missing a
> > > standard case.
> > > To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to an int
> > var any
> > > number except "0".
> > >
> > > IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and any
> other
> > set)
> > > should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers apply
> the
> > > default)
> > > and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> > > IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all possible
> > cases.
> > >
> > > In other words we have in UIBase this code:
> > >
> > > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> > >
> > > I tested UIBase with this change worked:
> > >
> > > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> > value.toString() +
> > > 'px';
> > >
> > > It's ok to do this change?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Carlos
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui
> > (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > > >)
> > > escribió:
> > >
> > > > Basic has the most minimal support for changing things.
> > Supporting
> > > change
> > > > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected
> > change
> > > are
> > > > supported.
> > > >
> > > > What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That
> > you want
> > > > something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is
> > that
> > > could be
> > > > a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that
> knows
> > how to
> > > > manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs
> > to be
> > > done to
> > > > a component might depend on the component set.
> > > >
> > > > My 2 cents,
> > > > -Alex
> > > >
> > > > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <
> carlosrovira@apache.org
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I think I had this issue at other time.
> > > >
> > > > Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is
> > configured
> > > to 100,
> > > > so
> > > > in html this is:
> > > >
> > > > <div style="width:100%"/>
> > > >
> > > > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
> > > >
> > > > <div/>
> > > >
> > > > In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but
> > there's no
> > > way back
> > > > right?
> > > > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
> > > >
> > > > Or I'm missing something?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Carlos Rovira
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
I think what I want is not what you think I want :)
"Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash runtime"
That will not happen. The actual code for "percentWidth":
public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
{
COMPILE::SWF {
if (_percentWidth == value)
return;
if (!isNaN(value))
_explicitWidth = NaN;
_percentWidth = value;
}
COMPILE::JS {
this._percentWidth = value;
this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
if (!isNaN(value))
this._explicitWidth = NaN;
}
dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
}
The code I want in percentWidth:
public function set percentWidth(value:Number):void
{
COMPILE::SWF {
if (_percentWidth == value)
return;
if (!isNaN(value))
_explicitWidth = NaN;
_percentWidth = value;
}
COMPILE::JS {
this._percentWidth = value;
this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString() + '%';
if (!isNaN(value))
this._explicitWidth = NaN;
}
dispatchEvent(new Event("percentWidthChanged"));
}
Do you see that this is not about the general/global Royale API? is just a
fix for JS specific platform.
IOW, is just adding to "COMPILE::JS" the code "isNaN(value) ? null : "
So we are not baking any "behavior" or "particular semantic" in Royale
global code.
Think in what I said in my latest email: "what happens in JS if we pass NaN
to percentWidth"?
what value will be in "this.positioner.style.width" at the end of the
method execution?
Make more sense now?
Thanks
Carlos
El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 19:57, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Carlos,
>
> The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not
> allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's requirements be?
> Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by deleting it, AFAICT,
> has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead of sized to
> parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API usage into our
> base classes.
>
> Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but please do not
> bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I think I'll need
> to
> make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be able to do so
>
> Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a real value
> width
> can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the code is not
> affected this way since is the standard in browsers: setting style
> properties to null removes the property in all browsers. If we set
> width to
> NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
>
> I think the problem could be that you're identifying this case with a
> particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's not the case,
> I
> found this issue other times when working on Royale, and is not about
> to
> make a component to size as the parent or size as its content, is
> about to
> allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
>
> I found that need around three times working on ComboBox, DateField,
> and
> now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in that concrete
> code,
> but I think is not the right solution to add code of that kind in the
> framework.
>
> The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe that a part
> that
> we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to that lower level,
> is
> that me and you are the only ones working in components most of the
> time,
> And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with css, layouts
> and
> other kind of visuals.
>
> The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not the right one,
> since
> we end adding lots of code (override all that width and height
> methods) for
> something that is just a particular JS case that all users of UIBase
> should
> have available, and I'm afraid that some components that are coming
> from
> other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will not have that
> properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again) to all that
> classes.
>
> I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we are not using ok
> PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are interpreting PAYG
> not
> right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS platform still
> not
> considered in Basic implementation.
>
> After this explanation, do you still think I need to add all that code
> to
> StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add directly to UIBase
> the NaN
> case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this missing JS
> implementation?
>
> Thanks! :)
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
> El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui
> (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
> escribió:
>
> > IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone wants to
> change
> > from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written lots of
> > FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine without that
> > change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a "standard
> case".
> >
> > If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel, that's
> fine.
> > Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
> >
> > If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for Basic
> then we
> > can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just add a
> Utils
> > function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right thing". In some
> > component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring API to
> run, for
> > example.
> >
> > IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning" of some
> code so
> > that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the framework.
> We want
> > the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes someday.
> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > My perception for this particular case in the JS platform we are
> > missing a
> > standard case.
> > To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to an int
> var any
> > number except "0".
> >
> > IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and any other
> set)
> > should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers apply the
> > default)
> > and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> > IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all possible
> cases.
> >
> > In other words we have in UIBase this code:
> >
> > this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
> >
> > I tested UIBase with this change worked:
> >
> > this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null :
> value.toString() +
> > 'px';
> >
> > It's ok to do this change?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> >
> >
> > El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui
> (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> > >)
> > escribió:
> >
> > > Basic has the most minimal support for changing things.
> Supporting
> > change
> > > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected
> change
> > are
> > > supported.
> > >
> > > What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That
> you want
> > > something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is
> that
> > could be
> > > a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that knows
> how to
> > > manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs
> to be
> > done to
> > > a component might depend on the component set.
> > >
> > > My 2 cents,
> > > -Alex
> > >
> > > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <carlosrovira@apache.org
> >
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think I had this issue at other time.
> > >
> > > Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is
> configured
> > to 100,
> > > so
> > > in html this is:
> > >
> > > <div style="width:100%"/>
> > >
> > > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
> > >
> > > <div/>
> > >
> > > In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but
> there's no
> > way back
> > > right?
> > > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
> > >
> > > Or I'm missing something?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Carlos,
The browser is only one runtime. Setting Sprite.width to NaN is not allowed in the Flash runtime. What will the next runtime's requirements be?
Width as a style is a platform-specific API that, by deleting it, AFAICT, has the meaning "I want this thing sized to content instead of sized to parent". IMO, we do not want to bake platform-specific API usage into our base classes.
Feel free to make private things protected in UIBase, but please do not bake platform-specific API usage into Basic.
Thanks,
-Alex
On 12/19/19, 10:49 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex,
I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I think I'll need to
make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be able to do so
Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a real value width
can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the code is not
affected this way since is the standard in browsers: setting style
properties to null removes the property in all browsers. If we set width to
NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
I think the problem could be that you're identifying this case with a
particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's not the case, I
found this issue other times when working on Royale, and is not about to
make a component to size as the parent or size as its content, is about to
allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
I found that need around three times working on ComboBox, DateField, and
now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in that concrete code,
but I think is not the right solution to add code of that kind in the
framework.
The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe that a part that
we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to that lower level, is
that me and you are the only ones working in components most of the time,
And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with css, layouts and
other kind of visuals.
The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not the right one, since
we end adding lots of code (override all that width and height methods) for
something that is just a particular JS case that all users of UIBase should
have available, and I'm afraid that some components that are coming from
other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will not have that
properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again) to all that classes.
I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we are not using ok
PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are interpreting PAYG not
right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS platform still not
considered in Basic implementation.
After this explanation, do you still think I need to add all that code to
StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add directly to UIBase the NaN
case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this missing JS
implementation?
Thanks! :)
Carlos
El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone wants to change
> from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written lots of
> FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine without that
> change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a "standard case".
>
> If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel, that's fine.
> Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
>
> If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for Basic then we
> can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just add a Utils
> function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right thing". In some
> component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring API to run, for
> example.
>
> IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning" of some code so
> that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the framework. We want
> the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes someday.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> My perception for this particular case in the JS platform we are
> missing a
> standard case.
> To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to an int var any
> number except "0".
>
> IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and any other set)
> should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers apply the
> default)
> and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all possible cases.
>
> In other words we have in UIBase this code:
>
> this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
>
> I tested UIBase with this change worked:
>
> this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString() +
> 'px';
>
> It's ok to do this change?
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Basic has the most minimal support for changing things. Supporting
> change
> > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected change
> are
> > supported.
> >
> > What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That you want
> > something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is that
> could be
> > a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that knows how to
> > manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs to be
> done to
> > a component might depend on the component set.
> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think I had this issue at other time.
> >
> > Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is configured
> to 100,
> > so
> > in html this is:
> >
> > <div style="width:100%"/>
> >
> > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
> >
> > <div/>
> >
> > In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but there's no
> way back
> > right?
> > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
> >
> > Or I'm missing something?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0b3d6057d1b14cb7586308d784b424a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123781559401902&sdata=Y0ybUSs3HxewOk9koltEkQ2FNoUYYYpYzIXApau3MYU%3D&reserved=0
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
I can try to add to StyledUIBase instead to UIBase. I think I'll need to
make some UIBase vars protected instead of private to be able to do so
Anyway, I don't think this is "just-in-case" code. Is a real value width
can take in Javascript platform. The portability of the code is not
affected this way since is the standard in browsers: setting style
properties to null removes the property in all browsers. If we set width to
NaN in AS3, what does the browser?
I think the problem could be that you're identifying this case with a
particular layout scenario of a concrete component. It's not the case, I
found this issue other times when working on Royale, and is not about to
make a component to size as the parent or size as its content, is about to
allow to assign a value in a concrete property.
I found that need around three times working on ComboBox, DateField, and
now in DataGrid. I solved hardcoding the style.width in that concrete code,
but I think is not the right solution to add code of that kind in the
framework.
The fact other users does not find this problem is maybe that a part that
we are few yet in royale, and people is not going to that lower level, is
that me and you are the only ones working in components most of the time,
And between both, maybe I'm doing more styling work with css, layouts and
other kind of visuals.
The solution of adding to StyledUIBase seems to me not the right one, since
we end adding lots of code (override all that width and height methods) for
something that is just a particular JS case that all users of UIBase should
have available, and I'm afraid that some components that are coming from
other basic components (like Group or DataContiner) will not have that
properties, and I'll need to add the same code (again) to all that classes.
I think if we are so strict in this kind of cases, we are not using ok
PAYG, moreover when as I said before I think we are interpreting PAYG not
right in this concrete case that is just part of the JS platform still not
considered in Basic implementation.
After this explanation, do you still think I need to add all that code to
StyledUIBase? Or maybe could it be better to add directly to UIBase the NaN
case, so the rest of code in Royale could have this missing JS
implementation?
Thanks! :)
Carlos
El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 17:34, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone wants to change
> from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written lots of
> FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine without that
> change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a "standard case".
>
> If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel, that's fine.
> Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
>
> If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for Basic then we
> can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just add a Utils
> function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right thing". In some
> component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring API to run, for
> example.
>
> IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning" of some code so
> that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the framework. We want
> the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes someday.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> My perception for this particular case in the JS platform we are
> missing a
> standard case.
> To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to an int var any
> number except "0".
>
> IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and any other set)
> should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers apply the
> default)
> and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
> IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all possible cases.
>
> In other words we have in UIBase this code:
>
> this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
>
> I tested UIBase with this change worked:
>
> this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString() +
> 'px';
>
> It's ok to do this change?
>
> Thanks
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui (<aharui@adobe.com.invalid
> >)
> escribió:
>
> > Basic has the most minimal support for changing things. Supporting
> change
> > takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected change
> are
> > supported.
> >
> > What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That you want
> > something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is that
> could be
> > a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that knows how to
> > manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs to be
> done to
> > a component might depend on the component set.
> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think I had this issue at other time.
> >
> > Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is configured
> to 100,
> > so
> > in html this is:
> >
> > <div style="width:100%"/>
> >
> > then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
> >
> > <div/>
> >
> > In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but there's no
> way back
> > right?
> > we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
> >
> > Or I'm missing something?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C13eeb2da99794184130808d78470c91e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123492262709656&sdata=Y9dgWYv6MBciK4NN3zcbJBnslZWXTlIB1twCcds4xsU%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C13eeb2da99794184130808d78470c91e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123492262709656&sdata=Y9dgWYv6MBciK4NN3zcbJBnslZWXTlIB1twCcds4xsU%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
IMO, your proposed change adds code "just-in-case" someone wants to change from sizing-to-parent to sizing-to-content. We've written lots of FlexJS/Royale code over the years that works just fine without that change. That implies to me that this scenario is not a "standard case".
If you want to build that in as a standard case to Jewel, that's fine. Jewel does not have to be as lightweight as Basic.
If, over more years, we hear more folks with these cases for Basic then we can consider adding it to Basic, but I would probably just add a Utils function like "sizeToContent()" that "does the right thing". In some component sets, sizing to content might force a measuring API to run, for example.
IMO, it is better to think of the "semantics" or "meaning" of some code so that we don't bake platform-specific patterns into the framework. We want the framework to be easily portable to other runtimes someday.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 12/19/19, 2:47 AM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex,
My perception for this particular case in the JS platform we are missing a
standard case.
To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to an int var any
number except "0".
IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and any other set)
should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers apply the default)
and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all possible cases.
In other words we have in UIBase this code:
this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
I tested UIBase with this change worked:
this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString() + 'px';
It's ok to do this change?
Thanks
Carlos
El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Basic has the most minimal support for changing things. Supporting change
> takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected change are
> supported.
>
> What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That you want
> something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is that could be
> a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that knows how to
> manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs to be done to
> a component might depend on the component set.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think I had this issue at other time.
>
> Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is configured to 100,
> so
> in html this is:
>
> <div style="width:100%"/>
>
> then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
>
> <div/>
>
> In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but there's no way back
> right?
> we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
>
> Or I'm missing something?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C13eeb2da99794184130808d78470c91e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123492262709656&sdata=Y9dgWYv6MBciK4NN3zcbJBnslZWXTlIB1twCcds4xsU%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C13eeb2da99794184130808d78470c91e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123492262709656&sdata=Y9dgWYv6MBciK4NN3zcbJBnslZWXTlIB1twCcds4xsU%3D&reserved=0
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
My perception for this particular case in the JS platform we are missing a
standard case.
To try to make a comparison is like if we could add to an int var any
number except "0".
IMHO, the PAYG concept does not apply since Basic (and any other set)
should need in some cases to remove width (so browsers apply the default)
and that make JS set "width=null'" to remove it.
IOW, we are not translating correctly to JS in all possible cases.
In other words we have in UIBase this code:
this.positioner.style.width = value.toString() + '%';
I tested UIBase with this change worked:
this.positioner.style.width = isNaN(value) ? null : value.toString() + 'px';
It's ok to do this change?
Thanks
Carlos
El jue., 19 dic. 2019 a las 3:57, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Basic has the most minimal support for changing things. Supporting change
> takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected change are
> supported.
>
> What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That you want
> something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is that could be
> a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that knows how to
> manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs to be done to
> a component might depend on the component set.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I think I had this issue at other time.
>
> Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is configured to 100,
> so
> in html this is:
>
> <div style="width:100%"/>
>
> then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
>
> <div/>
>
> In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but there's no way back
> right?
> we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
>
> Or I'm missing something?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec54ddf89ee40bc0e9e08d7840a3a00%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123051791925058&sdata=15HGG0Goo8bQwVlS4U5UNKQ2Nz8yue0WdDwSZcbYmZU%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: how to remove style="width:100%" from Royale
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Basic has the most minimal support for changing things. Supporting change takes more code, so because of PAYG, only the most expected change are supported.
What is the "semantics" behind removing percentWidth? That you want something to go back to sizing to its content? One option is that could be a utils function like sizeToContent(widget:IUIBase) that knows how to manipulate a particular component set's widgets. What needs to be done to a component might depend on the component set.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 12/18/19, 2:32 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi,
I think I had this issue at other time.
Let's say we have a container where percentWidth is configured to 100, so
in html this is:
<div style="width:100%"/>
then we need to remove style="width:100%" so we end with:
<div/>
In royale we can do container.percentWidth=100, but there's no way back
right?
we can't do container.percentWidth = NaN or undefined.
Or I'm missing something?
Thanks
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7Cfec54ddf89ee40bc0e9e08d7840a3a00%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637123051791925058&sdata=15HGG0Goo8bQwVlS4U5UNKQ2Nz8yue0WdDwSZcbYmZU%3D&reserved=0