@rigor789 if you are ok with the change, I will adapt the current docs to reflect this change.

I'm not sure if using a dynamic component inside a <Frame> is a good idea - but I'm fine with the changes to allow at least specifying the backstackVisible and clearHistory options.

Maybe it would be better to only expose a single prop, which allows passing any of the navigation options (this will allow future options to be passed as well).

So <Frame :navigationOptions="{ clearHistory: true, someFutureOption: false }"> would get merged in using Object.assign({}, this.navigationOptions).

What do you think?

@rigor789 I totally agree with you but, when I reviewed the frame.js code I realized that there were already some navigation options considered (see this code fragment) so I kept the same approach and I added some more navigation options.

So, If we change the approach we have to decide if:

a) we remove the current transition options adding them in the navigationOptions prop, which would add a backward incompatible change

b) we add the navigationOption but we keep the current transition one, mixing both approaches which is a little confusing but backward compatible.

I'm happy with option a for 2.4.0 since that will be a 6.0 compatible release (will release it today if I manage to finish everything I have planned). I think I will leave this feature out of the current 2.3 (rc) release.

Edit: I think maybe we should keep the transition props, those are more commonly used afaik. Let's also go with the individual props for now - the only thing with this approach is that we need to maintain the props, but I don't think they'll change too often.