Convert Dismissable over to using animated subcomponents

Convert Dismissable over to using animated subcomponents

R=hansmuller@chromium.org, mpcomplete@chromium.org, mpcomplete@google.com

Committed: https://chromium.googlesource.com/external/mojo/+/f7567aa46df8f37e7b1fb83ac6d12504c84af425

[Matt Perry, 2015-07-15 00:27:26]

mpcomplete@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ mpcomplete@chromium.org

[Matt Perry, 2015-07-15 00:27:26]

Nice, LGTM

https://codereview.chromium.org/1228803008/diff/1/sky/sdk/lib/widgets/animate...
File sky/sdk/lib/widgets/animated.dart (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1228803008/diff/1/sky/sdk/lib/widgets/animate...
sky/sdk/lib/widgets/animated.dart:53: watch(performance);
maybe have all of these inherit from a common base class which owns the
performance and does the watch()

[hansmuller, 2015-07-15 00:38:04]

hansmuller@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ hansmuller@chromium.org

[hansmuller, 2015-07-15 00:38:04]

hansmuller@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ hansmuller@chromium.org

[hansmuller, 2015-07-15 00:38:04]

LGTM too

https://codereview.chromium.org/1228803008/diff/1/sky/sdk/lib/widgets/dismiss...
File sky/sdk/lib/widgets/dismissable.dart (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1228803008/diff/1/sky/sdk/lib/widgets/dismiss...
sky/sdk/lib/widgets/dismissable.dart:150: child: child
The OpacityAnimation needs a performance too (as you already know :-).

[hansmuller, 2015-07-15 00:38:04]

LGTM too

[abarth-chromium, 2015-07-15 03:35:52]

I simplified this CL a bit.  I'm not sure we need an OpacityAnimation component.
 It seems easier to just use Opacity...

[abarth-chromium, 2015-07-15 05:44:45]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001) manually as
f7567aa46df8f37e7b1fb83ac6d12504c84af425 (presubmit successful).

[Matt Perry, 2015-07-15 14:22:51]

On 2015/07/15 03:35:52, abarth-chromium wrote:
> I simplified this CL a bit.  I'm not sure we need an OpacityAnimation
component.
>  It seems easier to just use Opacity...

Isn't the point that we want to use AnimatedOpacity, etc and make the parent a
non-Animated component?

[abarth-chromium, 2015-07-15 14:46:04]

On 2015/07/15 at 14:22:51, mpcomplete wrote:
> On 2015/07/15 03:35:52, abarth-chromium wrote:
> > I simplified this CL a bit.  I'm not sure we need an OpacityAnimation
component.
> >  It seems easier to just use Opacity...
> 
> Isn't the point that we want to use AnimatedOpacity, etc and make the parent a
non-Animated component?

Yeah, but I'm not sure we have sufficient data to show that's a win yet.