[API Review]: Node validation

[steve.x.northover at oracle.com]

I don't agree.  It's pretty clear that when you call applyCSS(), then 
CSS is applied.  The rest of the JFX API works exactly as expected and 
as documented.  The programmer has precise control over what happens, 
when it happens and where it happens.

Can you summarize what "validate" does?  Is it sent to a leaf or the 
root node or does it matter?

Steve

On 12/07/2013 6:36 AM, Martin Sladecek wrote:
> What you suggest would be quite hard to use. Actually I think most of 
> the developers will not know how to use it properly in order to get 
> the right measurement.
> Simple "validate" call would be more convenient and less error-prone.
>
> -Martin
>
> On 07/12/2013 12:02 AM, steve.x.northover at oracle.com wrote:
>> I don't think I understand the answer. Are you saying that what we 
>> are suggesting is wrong conceptually or hard to implement or ...?
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> On 11/07/2013 1:23 PM, Martin Sladecek wrote:
>>> No, I will change the dirty roots to dirty flags on every node. With 
>>> them, it's possible to use it the way you suggest (applyCSS & layout 
>>> on nearest layout root), but it's much more convenient if we could 
>>> identify the layout root of the subtree and apply the layout from 
>>> there downwards. I think it's something most of the usecases would 
>>> want (SB, snapshot) but it's not that simple to identify layout root 
>>> (we have private flag for that in every Node, so internally it's 
>>> just one boolean check).
>>>
>>> -Martin
>>>
>>> On 07/11/2013 05:15 PM, Richard Bair wrote:
>>>>>> This might work for CSS, but won't for layout. The second example 
>>>>>> won't work because you'd just do layout of the node itself. It 
>>>>>> might get a different size from it's parent during the next 
>>>>>> layout pass (and the parent from it's parent, etc...). So the 
>>>>>> layout will look different after the next pulse. This is why we 
>>>>>> need more than layout() call and it's not just about adding the CSS.
>>>>> If I understand properly this would be the correct behavior. If I 
>>>>> ask a subtree of nodes to layout after setting the size of the 
>>>>> subtree root, then go farther up the tree to an ancestor, ensure 
>>>>> the ancestor has a size and layout again, the original subtree 
>>>>> might be layed out differently and I would expect that.  If I need 
>>>>> to take a snapshot of a child and it has to be in context of the 
>>>>> entire tree, I do CC in the root, force layout in the root and 
>>>>> then take a snapshot of the child.
>>>> That was what I was thinking as well, I don't understand why we 
>>>> have to do more than provide a way to apply CSS in order to satisfy 
>>>> all the use cases? Note that the old implementation (with lists of 
>>>> dirty roots on the Scene, or is this still the way we do it?) might 
>>>> be problematic here, I don't know, but from an API point of view, 
>>>> it seems like this is exactly what you want.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>