The issue was before they re-licensed it. Now I believe the issue is put to bed as MIT is Apache compatible.
On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 7:38 AM Kamil Breguła <kamil.breg...@polidea.com> wrote: > 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 > > > > > > >
