Summary:
@public
Most of them are legit issues which should not be compilable anyways (but Clang tolerates thems).
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D8655539
fbshipit-source-id: 645729fb9d6a120ce1ab2b07542abcdacd72320d
Summary:
@public
This diff changes how we store and manage Yoga Config in layoutable shadow nodes.
Previously we have `shared_ptr` to single shared yoga config (one to many relationships); now we initiate and store yoga config with yoga node (one to one relationship).
Cons:
- Less memory efficient.
Pros:
- Much more flexible model. Configuration can be tweaked on a per-node basis.
- More performant. Dealing with `shared_ptr` is expensive because of atomic ref-counter. (This is not really applicable for the previous approach but would be applicable for any alternate approach where we want to have more granular control of the configuration.) Data locality is also great in the new model which should positively impact performance.
- Simplicity. Any alternate approach where we manage sets of nodes which share the same configuration is going to be quite complex.
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D8475638
fbshipit-source-id: 5d73116718ced8e4b2d31d857bb9aac69eb69f2b
Summary:
Given that fact that life-time of YGNode and ShadowNode objects must be idential and that we always allocate ShadowNode on heap,
we can embed YGNode object right inside ShadowNode object and use pointer to it safely.
That allows us to save additional memory allocation for every single layoutable shadow node! Whoo-hoo!
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D8070121
fbshipit-source-id: 6eefbca1b7ac0a8aad235513b4c4899d414835f2
Summary:
I recently realized (Thanks David!) that we should not use `shared_ptr` for storing YGNode*
because ShadowNode does not share ownership of the Yoga node with anybody.
So the lifecycle of shadow node and yoga node must be synchronized (this is already the case but changing to unique_ptr makes this explicit and a bit more performant).
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D8030417
fbshipit-source-id: c7f85ea309598d2a5ebfed55b1d182d3fe1336ae
Summary: Conceptually, it always must be node owner's responsibility, but for the root node, we have to make an exception because there is no another parent node and there is no another component which has access to YogaNode.
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D7958251
fbshipit-source-id: 0bdaea87adbd323c758bc3c28f325be615aa90f3
Summary:
YogaLayoutableShadowNode::enableMeasurement() connects Yoga's measuring API and Fabric measuring API.
`enableMeasurement` should be called for leaf Yoga nodes with custom content which should be measured manually during layout.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D7738574
fbshipit-source-id: ffe883905c4809290d4d973ad29dc5f0e1ec7573
Summary:
It's more useful and consistent now because:
- We print compound layout metrics from the correct storage (not from Yoga nodes);
- It works fro any kind of layout now (but we still have just one);
- It's much clear and straight-forward.
Reviewed By: fkgozali
Differential Revision: D7607422
fbshipit-source-id: 4c3cd2848e785a7f77c7f591e376d00c7c09ade9
Summary:
YogaLayoutableShadowNode::yogaNodeCloneCallbackConnector recently was disabled because of change in Yoga (D7339832).
This diff brings is back.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D7526417
fbshipit-source-id: 5369d641bf1e118132cf742d2d243bf426c0ffdb
Summary: Trivial. We don't use it, and it shouldn't be exist by desing.
Reviewed By: mdvacca
Differential Revision: D7376351
fbshipit-source-id: 22f03af2b3596c274a22bab1fab6d8af854a7374