But there is the question, does Apache have additional restrictions on
this issue?

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 4:30 PM Colin Ingarfield
<colin.ingarfi...@morningstar.com> wrote:
>
> React is currently licensed under MIT.
>
> https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
>
> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/facebook-just-changed-the-license-on-react-heres-a-2-minute-explanation-why-5878478913b2/
>
> On 11/27/19, 9:11 AM, "Kamil Breguła" <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote:
>
>     [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
>     Is React legal in Apache initiatives already? I heard that this
>
>     project changed the licenses, but we should watch out for Facebook.
>
>     
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.itprotoday.com_devops-2Dand-2Dsoftware-2Ddevelopment_apache-2Dfoundation-2Dand-2Dfacebook-2Dstandoff-2Dover-2Dreactjs-2Dlicense&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=NzcCT-xhpLMIOFlb3EpK4_b1ypfB_scwQ4PfDJKLSis&e=
>
>
>
>     Here is license for Angular:
>
>     
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__angular.io_license&d=DwIBaQ&c=qrd1rYdJNb4QhfvJv5PebOPglYwfSMJ71NR_1HMKptQ&r=TfriZmlluvBPSiGDG1II85Whszw5E4TwSIipOGURQGQ&m=cju2yQdN9LfNqJQrqVsTEEMrpzYuH05GsuxPIyrUeZs&s=FsWIhNpjxj24-nUznPIL4f5CkAoGm5fEG9CmQg443tg&e=
>
>
>
>     On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Dan Davydov
>
>     <ddavy...@twitter.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>     >
>
>     > +1 to everything you said, it all sounds like awesome work : ). 
> Hopefully
>
>     > will be easier to make the front-end code testable as well. Another 
> thing
>
>     > to maybe think about in the future is plugin/customization of the UI. 
> E.g.
>
>     > being able to have custom UI widgets for operators that e.g. visualize 
> data
>
>     > in some way (it's super useful for ML at least). Also not a front-end 
> guy
>
>     > either, but React seems like a fine choice.
>
>     >
>
>     > On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 12:07 PM Ash Berlin-Taylor <a...@apache.org> 
> wrote:
>
>     >
>
>     > > Hi everyone,
>
>     > >
>
>     > > We here at Astronomer are thinking about what we'd next like to work 
> on to
>
>     > > improve Airflow, and one of the most visible ways we could improve 
> Airflow
>
>     > > would be to update the UI, and make it, well, more designed and less
>
>     > > grown-over-time :)
>
>     > >
>
>     > > A non-exhaustive list of things we'd like to fix/improve/add in the UI
>
>     > >
>
>     > > - Making the UI more consistent. For example the actions you can take 
> via
>
>     > > the Browse pages are different to the ones you can take via the Task
>
>     > > Instance modal, and none of those are visible when you're on any of 
> the TI
>
>     > > pages.
>
>     > > - Update the look and feel to be more modern. It's especially 
> noticeable
>
>     > > now that we've redesigned the project website.
>
>     > > - Improve the UX and "usefulness" of the UI. There's lots of power in
>
>     > > there, but some odd quirks in to how information is presented that 
> could be
>
>     > > improved.
>
>     > > - Have "real time" updating of the UI. (This is a biiig chunk of work,
>
>     > > especially the backend component for this and is a whole separate
>
>     > > discussion, but we want to work on this.)
>
>     > >
>
>     > > We build the UIs for Astronomer in React so we were thinking about 
> using
>
>     > > React again here on Airflow. There are a couple of ways we could do 
> this:
>
>     > >
>
>     > > - We could update/redesign/rebuild the existing mostly static pages in
>
>     > > place (i.e. just change the templates/js/css)
>
>     > > - A hybrid approach where we could add react to chunks of the page, 
> but
>
>     > > keep parts of it server-rendered.
>
>     > > - A total re-write where the UI is react-only and the UI just speaks 
> to an
>
>     > > API server.
>
>     > >
>
>     > > The main thing I'm conscious of is avoiding the "dual webserver" we 
> had
>
>     > > with the RBAC addition  which caused all sorts of pain, both for
>
>     > > development and for users. I want to avoid that pain again.
>
>     > >
>
>     > > The other thing is that React has a higher learning curve, so if we do
>
>     > > decide on React we should make sure that we have some clear 
> guidelines on
>
>     > > how to structure and test the code, and better yet machine-enforce 
> rules.
>
>     > >
>
>     > > Do people have opinions on React in general (I asked in #sig-ui on 
> slack
>
>     > > and the few people there were broadly positive of React) and the 
> approach
>
>     > > we should take specifically. Normally I'm a bit of a luddite when it 
> comes
>
>     > > to HTML+JS and I like things to be progressively enhanced buuut maybe 
> that
>
>     > > isn't a requirement here..
>
>     > >
>
>     > > Thoughts?
>
>     > >
>
>     > > -ash
>
>
>

Reply via email to