Remove pojo

[davidtme]

To match facebook/react@b2297ae

[alfonsogarciacaro]

Hmm, this may require some investigation. According to the issue that generated the PR you linked they're removing the warning because of false positives, not because they don't care if it's a plain object or not.

This is an important distinction because React may remove the prototype methods of the object (I guess @et1975 had some trouble with that) and then things may fail at runtime (like equality comparison with .Equals).

[et1975]

elmish no longer passes any user models to React as-is, they are always wrapped in a record, which is never treated as a valid F# object from then on. React shallow-mangles those records, but that's fine. For fable-react it might be a good idea to keep the attr, but I can't think of a specific reason - a callback with a previously supplied argument?

[alfonsogarciacaro]

It's common in React to pass functions in the props object, and if this functions are in the prototype I'm afraid they may be removed :/

[davidtme]

I've checked and react does keep the functions .Equals etc but it does mangle it so instanceof no longer works. It only seems to mangle the root prop so maybe I could wrap my record up?

[alfonsogarciacaro]

The helpers in fable-react are a very thin layer on top of React. In a sense, Pojo forces you to wrap your record. More high-level libraries like fable-elmish can do this automatically for you. I'd rather keep the Pojo attribute for now, because it makes the user aware of the semantics and it plays very nicely with React developer tools.

[davidtme]

Thanks @et1975 and @alfonsogarciacaro this has really been helpful. It's not safe to remove the 'Pojo' attribute.