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 2019/04/07 11:15:59 UTC
includedInLayout
Hi,
we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property (with
visible/hidden)
I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a bead
if there's no other proposal.
thanks
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carlos,
I thought we have bead which is doing exactly what your are talking about.
I could also be wrong and it is Disable/Enable bead. I have to search more
repository. :)
Piotr
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 1:16 PM Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property (with
> visible/hidden)
>
> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a bead
> if there's no other proposal.
>
> thanks
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 12:59, Kessler CTR Mark J
(<ma...@usmc.mil.invalid>) escribió:
> For the apps we create we use both cases.
>
> 1. Make something invisible, but not remove it's layout space. This
> matches Carlos's example, by allowed a static sized interface even when
> parts are not visible.
>
This for me should be a bead for modern Royale
>
> 2. Make something invisible and remove it's layout space. Standard
> items, such as hiding interface / buttons / allowing things to collapse.
>
This is current visible that we have now on UIBase
>
>
> We have used the "includeInLayout" and "visible" properties together
> to replace the states (includeIn and excludeFrom) in some use cases where
> we needed forms with fully created components on loading a popup. It was
> the only way to get our validation manager to work properly. For us, Flex
> states never really worked as intended for this scenario even when we tried
> the "creationPolicy='all '". It introduced quarks for component
> validation. But that doesn't seem to be a problem yet
>
> I'm ok with any method of doing these 2 (mean hidden and hidden without
> layout), just as long as we can do both.
>
Right, I think we should have both, the most used baked in UIBase since the
use is huge, the other be available in beads and use in the combination
each edge case needs.
>
>
> -Mark K
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
RE: includedInLayout
Posted by Kessler CTR Mark J <ma...@usmc.mil.INVALID>.
For the apps we create we use both cases.
1. Make something invisible, but not remove it's layout space. This matches Carlos's example, by allowed a static sized interface even when parts are not visible.
2. Make something invisible and remove it's layout space. Standard items, such as hiding interface / buttons / allowing things to collapse.
We have used the "includeInLayout" and "visible" properties together to replace the states (includeIn and excludeFrom) in some use cases where we needed forms with fully created components on loading a popup. It was the only way to get our validation manager to work properly. For us, Flex states never really worked as intended for this scenario even when we tried the "creationPolicy='all '". It introduced quarks for component validation. But that doesn't seem to be a problem yet
I'm ok with any method of doing these 2 (mean hidden and hidden without layout), just as long as we can do both.
-Mark K
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
maybe is difficult to change that now, since this refactor will imply many
changes in other components and apps.
In the other hand, as you said in flex we found most of the times setting
both vars in mxml or in bindings, so I don't think is good to mimic this
behavior. I think current one is the most used and is ok for me, since is
99% of the cases (or I never need "visibility" until yesterday).
So I think we should instead have a bead for visibility, since this is the
edge case.
We can even create another bead for the flex behavior, so people wanting to
have the same can use both.
IOW, I think we should stick with what we have, since seems what most of
the people uses most of the time, but have beads for the edge cases and
flex cases, since seems more PAYG.
thoughts?
just my 2
El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 3:45, Alex Harui (<ah...@adobe.com.invalid>)
escribió:
> Interesting. I didn't know about CSS visibility. It might be better to
> have UIBase "visible" getter/setter affect CSS visibility instead of
> display:none. I think it would save some code in UIBase and give us the
> same effect in both Flash and browser. IncludeInLayout could be
> implemented as a bead and affect display:none. I wonder how many people
> truly need to exclude elements from the layout. IMO, the IncludeInLayout
> property was abused in Flex to simulate navigators with deferred
> instantiation and resulted in tons of performance issues.
>
> Thoughts?
> -Alex
>
> On 4/7/19, 5:50 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> @Harbs,
>
> in the following video,
>
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FApacheRoyale%2Fstatus%2F1115026909363093511&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=WuElzaDSOomx1jPyQqoV0lhk0zXGtqiT5ftbmZVColA%3D&reserved=0
>
> buttons are using visibility css property instead of display css
> property
> change. If I use display, the changes in content width will make the
> slide
> effect look worse. So this is a special case.
>
> just to show you a concrete visual case
>
> thanks
>
>
>
>
> El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:41, Carlos Rovira (<
> carlosrovira@apache.org>)
> escribió:
>
> > Right, I prefer the actual "visible", just saying that I found a case
> > where I need just make the artifact invisible, while it maintains
> the space
> > occupied
> >
> > Maybe this is 1% of cases, but I think we need a bead just to handle
> > "visibility" css property in Royale from AS3. I don't think this
> should
> > mimic flex since we end always setting two properties each time what
> was
> > cumbersome.
> >
> > El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:02, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
> >
> >> includeInLayout actually removes the object from the structure when
> not
> >> included.
> >>
> >> I guess theoretically this can mean a simpler structure, but to me
> >> visible is better because:
> >>
> >> 1. There’s less overhead on adding and removing.
> >> 2. With includeInLayout there’s more chance of getting RTEs when the
> >> element does not exist, while with visible, it exists even when not
> >> computed for layout.
> >>
> >> > On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
> >> >
> >> > visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it
> >> changes
> >> > "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
> >> > if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the
> object
> >> > disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so
> in flex
> >> > will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
> >> > if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this
> makes the
> >> > object visible in screen and depending on things like position
> compute
> >> in
> >> > layout,
> >> > so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
> >> > This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
> >> >
> >> > in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not
> >> visible
> >> > but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in
> screen)
> >> > so in flex will be like visible=true or false but
> includeInLayout= true
> >> > always.
> >> >
> >> > I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in
> Wizard
> >> I'm
> >> > adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain
> the
> >> space
> >> > but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I
> think this
> >> > will be useful for others.
> >> >
> >> > Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now
> "includeInLayout" has
> >> no
> >> > sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
> >> >
> >> > @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
> >> > Disable/Enable is for visibility?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> >> escribió:
> >> >
> >> >> Why not just use “visible”?
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> carlosrovira@apache.org>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility"
> property
> >> (with
> >> >>> visible/hidden)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add
> it as a
> >> >> bead
> >> >>> if there's no other proposal.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> thanks
> >> >>>
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >> >>>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Carlos Rovira
> >> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> >
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
>
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
>
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Interesting. I didn't know about CSS visibility. It might be better to have UIBase "visible" getter/setter affect CSS visibility instead of display:none. I think it would save some code in UIBase and give us the same effect in both Flash and browser. IncludeInLayout could be implemented as a bead and affect display:none. I wonder how many people truly need to exclude elements from the layout. IMO, the IncludeInLayout property was abused in Flex to simulate navigators with deferred instantiation and resulted in tons of performance issues.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 4/7/19, 5:50 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
@Harbs,
in the following video,
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FApacheRoyale%2Fstatus%2F1115026909363093511&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=WuElzaDSOomx1jPyQqoV0lhk0zXGtqiT5ftbmZVColA%3D&reserved=0
buttons are using visibility css property instead of display css property
change. If I use display, the changes in content width will make the slide
effect look worse. So this is a special case.
just to show you a concrete visual case
thanks
El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:41, Carlos Rovira (<ca...@apache.org>)
escribió:
> Right, I prefer the actual "visible", just saying that I found a case
> where I need just make the artifact invisible, while it maintains the space
> occupied
>
> Maybe this is 1% of cases, but I think we need a bead just to handle
> "visibility" css property in Royale from AS3. I don't think this should
> mimic flex since we end always setting two properties each time what was
> cumbersome.
>
> El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:02, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> includeInLayout actually removes the object from the structure when not
>> included.
>>
>> I guess theoretically this can mean a simpler structure, but to me
>> visible is better because:
>>
>> 1. There’s less overhead on adding and removing.
>> 2. With includeInLayout there’s more chance of getting RTEs when the
>> element does not exist, while with visible, it exists even when not
>> computed for layout.
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
>> >
>> > visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it
>> changes
>> > "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
>> > if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object
>> > disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex
>> > will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
>> > if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the
>> > object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute
>> in
>> > layout,
>> > so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
>> > This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
>> >
>> > in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not
>> visible
>> > but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen)
>> > so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true
>> > always.
>> >
>> > I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard
>> I'm
>> > adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the
>> space
>> > but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think this
>> > will be useful for others.
>> >
>> > Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has
>> no
>> > sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
>> >
>> > @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
>> > Disable/Enable is for visibility?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
>> escribió:
>> >
>> >> Why not just use “visible”?
>> >>
>> >>> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property
>> (with
>> >>> visible/hidden)
>> >>>
>> >>> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a
>> >> bead
>> >>> if there's no other proposal.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Carlos Rovira
>> >>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Carlos Rovira
>> > https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C0ce85b87aca64b8fe20108d6bbbc323e%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C636902814342140692&sdata=t4kfWMi8KBiNVQ%2Fw44d4bGavO%2FzqK6YtkOQcBsuds2g%3D&reserved=0
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
@Harbs,
in the following video,
https://twitter.com/ApacheRoyale/status/1115026909363093511
buttons are using visibility css property instead of display css property
change. If I use display, the changes in content width will make the slide
effect look worse. So this is a special case.
just to show you a concrete visual case
thanks
El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:41, Carlos Rovira (<ca...@apache.org>)
escribió:
> Right, I prefer the actual "visible", just saying that I found a case
> where I need just make the artifact invisible, while it maintains the space
> occupied
>
> Maybe this is 1% of cases, but I think we need a bead just to handle
> "visibility" css property in Royale from AS3. I don't think this should
> mimic flex since we end always setting two properties each time what was
> cumbersome.
>
> El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:02, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> includeInLayout actually removes the object from the structure when not
>> included.
>>
>> I guess theoretically this can mean a simpler structure, but to me
>> visible is better because:
>>
>> 1. There’s less overhead on adding and removing.
>> 2. With includeInLayout there’s more chance of getting RTEs when the
>> element does not exist, while with visible, it exists even when not
>> computed for layout.
>>
>> > On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
>> >
>> > visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it
>> changes
>> > "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
>> > if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object
>> > disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex
>> > will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
>> > if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the
>> > object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute
>> in
>> > layout,
>> > so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
>> > This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
>> >
>> > in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not
>> visible
>> > but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen)
>> > so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true
>> > always.
>> >
>> > I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard
>> I'm
>> > adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the
>> space
>> > but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think this
>> > will be useful for others.
>> >
>> > Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has
>> no
>> > sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
>> >
>> > @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
>> > Disable/Enable is for visibility?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
>> escribió:
>> >
>> >> Why not just use “visible”?
>> >>
>> >>> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property
>> (with
>> >>> visible/hidden)
>> >>>
>> >>> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a
>> >> bead
>> >>> if there's no other proposal.
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Carlos Rovira
>> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Carlos Rovira
>> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Right, I prefer the actual "visible", just saying that I found a case where
I need just make the artifact invisible, while it maintains the space
occupied
Maybe this is 1% of cases, but I think we need a bead just to handle
"visibility" css property in Royale from AS3. I don't think this should
mimic flex since we end always setting two properties each time what was
cumbersome.
El lun., 8 abr. 2019 a las 0:02, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> includeInLayout actually removes the object from the structure when not
> included.
>
> I guess theoretically this can mean a simpler structure, but to me visible
> is better because:
>
> 1. There’s less overhead on adding and removing.
> 2. With includeInLayout there’s more chance of getting RTEs when the
> element does not exist, while with visible, it exists even when not
> computed for layout.
>
> > On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
> >
> > visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it changes
> > "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
> > if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object
> > disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex
> > will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
> > if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the
> > object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute in
> > layout,
> > so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
> > This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
> >
> > in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not visible
> > but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen)
> > so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true
> > always.
> >
> > I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard
> I'm
> > adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the
> space
> > but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think this
> > will be useful for others.
> >
> > Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has
> no
> > sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
> >
> > @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
> > Disable/Enable is for visibility?
> >
> >
> >
> > El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
> >
> >> Why not just use “visible”?
> >>
> >>> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property
> (with
> >>> visible/hidden)
> >>>
> >>> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a
> >> bead
> >>> if there's no other proposal.
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Carlos Rovira
> >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >>
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
includeInLayout actually removes the object from the structure when not included.
I guess theoretically this can mean a simpler structure, but to me visible is better because:
1. There’s less overhead on adding and removing.
2. With includeInLayout there’s more chance of getting RTEs when the element does not exist, while with visible, it exists even when not computed for layout.
> On Apr 8, 2019, at 12:27 AM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
>
> visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it changes
> "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
> if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object
> disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex
> will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
> if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the
> object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute in
> layout,
> so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
> This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
>
> in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not visible
> but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen)
> so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true
> always.
>
> I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard I'm
> adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the space
> but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think this
> will be useful for others.
>
> Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has no
> sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
>
> @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
> Disable/Enable is for visibility?
>
>
>
> El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
>
>> Why not just use “visible”?
>>
>>> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property (with
>>> visible/hidden)
>>>
>>> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a
>> bead
>>> if there's no other proposal.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>>
>>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Carlos,
Nope I said that I could be wrong that this kind of stuff exists. I could
go wrong with my thinking and we have only bead for disable/enable stuff.
Thanks,
Piotr
niedz., 7 kwi 2019 o 23:34 Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
napisał(a):
> Hi,
>
> sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
>
> visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it changes
> "display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
> if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object
> disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex
> will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
> if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the
> object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute in
> layout,
> so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
> This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
>
> in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not visible
> but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen)
> so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true
> always.
>
> I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard I'm
> adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the space
> but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think this
> will be useful for others.
>
> Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has no
> sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
>
> @Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
> Disable/Enable is for visibility?
>
>
>
> El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>)
> escribió:
>
> > Why not just use “visible”?
> >
> > > On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property
> (with
> > > visible/hidden)
> > >
> > > I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a
> > bead
> > > if there's no other proposal.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Rovira
> > > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
> >
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi,
sorry, but I invert what I want to say. We currently have:
visible: this is like includeInLayout + visible in flex since it changes
"display" between "none" and "block" or "flex" right?
if I put visible to false, display is "none", and this makes the object
disappear from screen and also don't compute in html layout, so in flex
will be like visible=false and includeInLayout= false
if I put visible to true, display is "block"/"flex", and this makes the
object visible in screen and depending on things like position compute in
layout,
so in flex will be like visible=true and includeInLayout= true
This use to be the main use we all do most of the times.
in the other hand we have "visibility", that makes the object not visible
but included in layout (still is there occupying some space in screen)
so in flex will be like visible=true or false but includeInLayout= true
always.
I found this useful under certain circumstances. For example in Wizard I'm
adding transitions and navigation buttons should better maintain the space
but disappear, instead of make the slide grow or shrink. So I think this
will be useful for others.
Maybe since we did visible not equal to flex, now "includeInLayout" has no
sense.. but still a bead for "visibility" can be useful
@Piotr: don't think I understand correctly your message. You say
Disable/Enable is for visibility?
El dom., 7 abr. 2019 a las 16:26, Harbs (<ha...@gmail.com>) escribió:
> Why not just use “visible”?
>
> > On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property (with
> > visible/hidden)
> >
> > I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a
> bead
> > if there's no other proposal.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: includedInLayout
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Why not just use “visible”?
> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> we can get flex "includedInLayout" using css "visibility" property (with
> visible/hidden)
>
> I suppose it's not in UIBase for if PAYG reasons, so I can add it as a bead
> if there's no other proposal.
>
> thanks
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira