Re: FYI: React appears to be a no-no

gt;>wrote: >> >> Does that rule out a reactjs component set (ala createjs)? >> >> From: Harbs<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com> >> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:47 PM >> To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> >> Subject:

Re: FYI: React appears to be a no-no

7 12:47 PM > To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> > Subject: Re: FYI: React appears to be a no-no > > No. > > I just thought this was newsworthy. > >> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >> >>

RE: FYI: React appears to be a no-no

Does that rule out a reactjs component set (ala createjs)? From: Harbs<mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:47 PM To: dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org> Subject: Re: FYI: React appears to be a no-no No. I just thought this was newsworthy. >

Re: FYI: React appears to be a no-no

No. I just thought this was newsworthy. > On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > > I"m not following. Do we currently have a required dependency on React? > > -Alex > > On 7/16/17, 6:19 AM, "Harbs" wrote: > >> The incompatibility

Re: FYI: React appears to be a no-no

I"m not following. Do we currently have a required dependency on React? -Alex On 7/16/17, 6:19 AM, "Harbs" wrote: >The incompatibility of React’s license is potentially significant for >FlexJS.[1] >

Re: FYI: React appears to be a no-no

Hi - The RocksDB community is changing their license and React is being asked to as well: https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191 Let's see how this plays out. Regards, Dave Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:19 AM, Harbs wrote: > > The