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

2017-07-17 Thread Alex Harui
IMO, it would not preclude a reactjs component set.  You can have Cat-X
dependencies as long as they are optional.  One of the measures of whether
a dependency is optional is whether or not a majority of users use that
dependency.  Just like the CreateJS component set, we can put together a
first cut and if it becomes wildly popular then that community would
probably take responsibility for the component set and its distribution to
customers.

-Alex

On 7/17/17, 3:16 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:

>As Dave said, let’s see how this plays out at Facebook, but it’s
>currently not looking too great.[1]
>
>My understanding is that it would preclude a reactjs component set, but I
>could be wrong.
>
>[1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub
>.com%2Ffacebook%2Freact%2Fissues%2F10191%23issuecomment-315707719=02%
>7C01%7C%7C3246fdcb92214d77f08508d4ccfcd826%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178dec
>ee1%7C0%7C0%7C636358833708383226=fDF8%2FwsOXbDNWL1qph6qd4o6U2uKFcyyF
>fULZDHna%2BE%3D=0
><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.c
>om%2Ffacebook%2Freact%2Fissues%2F10191%23issuecomment-315707719=02%7C
>01%7C%7C3246fdcb92214d77f08508d4ccfcd826%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee
>1%7C0%7C0%7C636358833708383226=fDF8%2FwsOXbDNWL1qph6qd4o6U2uKFcyyFfU
>LZDHna%2BE%3D=0>
>
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com>
>>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
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> I just thought this was newsworthy.
>> 
>>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>> I"m not following.  Do we currently have a required dependency on
>>>React?
>>> 
>>> -Alex
>>> 
>>> On 7/16/17, 6:19 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The incompatibility of React’s license is potentially significant for
>>>> FlexJS.[1]
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>[1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fiss
>>>>ues
>>>> 
>>>>.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534
>>>>e63
>>>> 
>>>>772208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636358079
>>>>641
>>>> 
>>>>383681=Ag6aXVH9z9XDazv6hpTakzzcNA%2BdIUBrCS1sYTLGTho%3D=
>>>>0
>>>> 
>>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissue
>>>>s.a
>>>> 
>>>>pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e6
>>>>377
>>>> 
>>>>2208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63635807964
>>>>139
>>>> 
>>>>3686=KeNChB38k71gekwa0h%2Fq6P8P3VN%2FbB2TYzICzB%2BosTo%3D
>>>>d=0
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>



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

2017-07-17 Thread Harbs
As Dave said, let’s see how this plays out at Facebook, but it’s currently not 
looking too great.[1]

My understanding is that it would preclude a reactjs component set, but I could 
be wrong.

[1]https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191#issuecomment-315707719 
<https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191#issuecomment-315707719>

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> 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
> 
> No.
> 
> I just thought this was newsworthy.
> 
>> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> 
>> I"m not following.  Do we currently have a required dependency on React?
>> 
>> -Alex
>> 
>> On 7/16/17, 6:19 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> The incompatibility of React’s license is potentially significant for
>>> FlexJS.[1]
>>> 
>>> [1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues
>>> .apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e63
>>> 772208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636358079641
>>> 383681=Ag6aXVH9z9XDazv6hpTakzzcNA%2BdIUBrCS1sYTLGTho%3D=0
>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.a
>>> pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e6377
>>> 2208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63635807964139
>>> 3686=KeNChB38k71gekwa0h%2Fq6P8P3VN%2FbB2TYzICzB%2BosTo%3D=0
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 



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

2017-07-17 Thread Yishay Weiss
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.

> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:27 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> I"m not following.  Do we currently have a required dependency on React?
>
> -Alex
>
> On 7/16/17, 6:19 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The incompatibility of React’s license is potentially significant for
>> FlexJS.[1]
>>
>> [1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues
>> .apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e63
>> 772208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636358079641
>> 383681=Ag6aXVH9z9XDazv6hpTakzzcNA%2BdIUBrCS1sYTLGTho%3D=0
>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues.a
>> pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e6377
>> 2208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63635807964139
>> 3686=KeNChB38k71gekwa0h%2Fq6P8P3VN%2FbB2TYzICzB%2BosTo%3D=0
>>>
>>
>>
>



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

2017-07-17 Thread Harbs
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 of React’s license is potentially significant for
>> FlexJS.[1]
>> 
>> [1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues
>> .apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e63
>> 772208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636358079641
>> 383681=Ag6aXVH9z9XDazv6hpTakzzcNA%2BdIUBrCS1sYTLGTho%3D=0
>> > pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e6377
>> 2208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63635807964139
>> 3686=KeNChB38k71gekwa0h%2Fq6P8P3VN%2FbB2TYzICzB%2BosTo%3D=0
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 



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

2017-07-17 Thread Alex Harui
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]
>
>[1]https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fissues
>.apache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e63
>772208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636358079641
>383681=Ag6aXVH9z9XDazv6hpTakzzcNA%2BdIUBrCS1sYTLGTho%3D=0
>pache.org%2Fjira%2Fbrowse%2FLEGAL-319=02%7C01%7C%7C4c6a9d8c95534e6377
>2208d4cc4d45db%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C63635807964139
>3686=KeNChB38k71gekwa0h%2Fq6P8P3VN%2FbB2TYzICzB%2BosTo%3D=0
>>
>
>



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

2017-07-16 Thread Dave Fisher
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 incompatibility of React’s license is potentially significant for 
> FlexJS.[1]
> 
> [1]https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-319 
> 
> 
>