Well, the whole drawRect() method seemed redundant to me along with the need to specify the width and height. I tried to remove it and move the logic to the draw() method (sans the width and height, and I ran into the following code in DecrementButtonView: _backRect.drawRect(0, 0, host.width, host.height); I was assuming that there’s a reason the host width and height is being specified instead of the _backRect ones.
I also have no idea what this was about: resize(x, y, _rect['getBBox']()); If this can all be simplified, I’d be happy to do so, but I thought there’s things going on here that I don’t completely understand. I’m not understanding why a Rect needs to wrap the svg. Why can’t it just be a pure rect element and be required to be added to an svg or g element? On Jul 26, 2016, at 11:55 PM, Peter Ent <p...@adobe.com> wrote: > I actually just followed some examples from Om. We have our element as the > root of a component which would be the <svg>. This is positioned and so > anything drawn in it would start a (0,0). So to me, this makes sense for > how it is being done at the moment. > > ‹peter > > On 7/26/16, 3:52 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Internally, it¹s always setting it to 0,0. It looks to me like some >> renderers might be doing some relative positioning, but I did not study >> them well enough to figure it out. >> >> I think it was in charts, so Peter should probably have a better idea. >> >> On Jul 26, 2016, at 10:41 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 7/26/16, 11:47 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I agree there should be a Group object. >>>> >>>> The problem is that the way the classes are currently constructed is >>>> that >>>> 100 pixel ³Rect" positioned at 100,100 actually contains the following >>>> markup: <svg x=³100² y=³100"><rect x=³0² y=³0² width=³100² >>>> height=³100²/></svg> >>> >>> Are you saying that code is doing relative positioning re-calculation? >>> I >>> would wonder why it does that. Otherwise, a more straightforward >>> mapping >>> would make sense. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >> >
