Talk:Ext JS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This page looks like an ad placed by the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also thinking text like "Sencha experts will love the ease with which changes are refactored and how simple it is to trace code to the source" is just a shameless plug. --sentinelAlpha (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

This article should be named "Ext JS", because Ext is now the name of the company which markets several products, including Ext JS, Ext GWT and more. Olivier101 (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversy: Is ExtJS really free?[edit]

NEWS: There is a library based on ExtJS that is called GeoExt that claims to be BSD License. How this should be possible is a big mystery to me. Katzlbt (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that Ext is GPLv3, The information below is more for entertainment than substance.
* Is MySQL really free ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
* ExtJS: When open source is not open at all
* (project dropped due to license issue)
* (project dropped due to license issue)
* IRC log of #zope3-dev for Friday, 2008-04-18
* ExtJS Plugin for Struts2 (talk) 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I've edited the article to reflect the licensing complexity and its interpretations. Martijn Faassen (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
* - ExtJS 2.1 was just released (2008-04-20) and the license has changed to a more restrictive (but equally confusing) license. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the Ext 2.1 situation is more confusing - it seems to be a fairly clear dual licensing model (GPL or commercial) now. I've updated the article. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Heh, well, the authors of Ext do like to make it more confusing. This is their interpretation:
In my understanding of the GPL, if the GPL is used in a web application, that does not mean that all those who *use* the application will be able to ask for the source code under this license. Only those who you actually *give* the application you should also give the source code to, licensed under the GPL. Of course with javascript the situation makes it somewhat more confusing, as this runs on the client side. This would imply at least that all javascript code on the client falls under the GPL, but not necessarily any server-side code that generates it. Anyway, I don't care enough to really figure it out. Martijn Faassen (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
* Ext Discovers Step 2 of the Slashdot Business Model?
* Does GPL make sense for AJAX libraries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Ext" or "Ext JS"?[edit]

What is the name of the library? "Ext" or "Ext JS"? This article uses both. --Mortense (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Template for Sencha products?[edit]

Can someone make a template for Sencha products? -- (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ext JS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)