News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on React 16.

Re:React 16 by supernintendo on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @12:53PM (#15340427)
Really excited about Portals. I work on a web app which was originally built with Spine.js (an MVC framework similar to Backbone). We've long moved on to React and Redux but have a few old views that have yet to be ported over. Portals seems like a nice way to refactor by incrementally replacing controller + template logic with components.

I'm also glad to see the switch to MIT license if only to put this patents controversy behind us. Now curious to see what happens with GraphQL...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by yasserkaddour on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:14PM (#15340637)
Yeay! GraphQL specification has been relicensed minutes ago to Open Web Foundation Agreement, graphql-js and relay to MIT. Great stuff from Facebook today.

https://medium.com/@leeb/relicensing-the-graphql-specificati...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15340528

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by jamier1978 on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:03PM (#15340511)
We are in the same position, except with backbone instead of spine. Nice idea for a use case of portals.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by duckfruit on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:38PM (#15340880)
Portals are like one of those ideas (like all great ideas) that are incredibly useful but seem obvious in retrospect. Thank you facebook and the react team for all your hard work!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by qaq on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:21PM (#15340708)
How exactly does it put patent controversy behind us? Before you had limited patent grant now you have none
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by brlewis on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:26PM (#15340752)
Because now it's exactly like every other piece of open source software, so lawyers can stop debating whether it's better or worse than an implicit grant.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by qaq on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @02:04PM (#15341117)
Like every other piece of OS software that is known to be covered by patents
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by brlewis on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @03:25PM (#15341744)
Just because software is not known to be covered by patents doesn't mean you don't have to worry about software patents.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by abritinthebay on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @03:15PM (#15341667)
It doesn't - but it does make lawyers fret less.

It's also more compatible (which, tbh, is actually more important practically) and that was the main problem with the whole Apache thing.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by tootie on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @12:59PM (#15340484)
I had a serious cringe reaction to seeing that term. I hope that the web 1.0 portal concept is sufficiently dead and buried that we can now rebrand "portal" to something useful.
[ Parent | on HN ]