On the client
When we recursively parse the View Structure and see some `id` (aka tag
number) key. We trying to find it in Backend response like `data[tagNumber:
11] as bytes` and merge with the current view (aka Text in the example).
On Thursday, June 20, 2024 at 7:44:06 PM UTC+2 Yan Zaitsev wrote:
> Hi,
> I am developing a server-driven UI service in my company. *I want to know
> your opinion on whether our approach is anti-pattern of protobuf usage *or
> if it is valid usage even if it is not common.
>
> Thank you for your time reading this long message!
>
> All our APIs for Client(iOS,Android,Web) <-> backend are based on protobuf
> models, thats why we want to use protobuf for SDUI too.
>
> We want to build a new service that will provide the View structure to the
> client, which has to be rendered. The client can cache only UI styling and
> layout, while another service provides the data for it.
> Client app has to bind server data to view the structure. The client does
> not know the schema of the server response, except it is protobuf data.
> View Structure and Backend data are protobuf models and use the same types
> - see examples below.
>
> ```
> message Text {
> string label = 1;
> Color color = 2;
> }
> message VerticalStack {}
> message HorizontalStack {}
>
> /// Typical View Structure in protobuf representation
> VerticalStack {
> spacing = 20pt
> children = [
> Text {
> id: 11
> color: .white
> }
> HorizontalStack {
> children: ...
> }
> ]
> }
> ```
>
> Another service has to provide data for this view structure.
>
> ```
> message BackendResponse {
> Text productTitle = 11;
> }
>
> ```
>
> `*BackendResponse*` schema is *NOT known to the client. *
>
> We came with idea to *use protobuf tag numbers for binding.*
> You can see that `Text.id = 11` and `BackendResponse.productTitle = 11`
>
> We built the autogenerated interfaces to safely set number 11 to the View
> structure and ensure that the backend response uses the property with
> number 11.
>
> I was not able to find a similar usage of protobuf structures. We found
> devs using descriptors and sending whole descriptor models to work with
> dynamic messages, or using FieldMask for filtering.
> Using the whole descriptor sounds overkill for this purpose.
> *The question of this post: even if it is not a common technique, is it
> known as anti-pattern?*
>
> These binding(tag numbers) numbers are used across the different code
> stacks:
>
> - View protos are known to clients, backend and separate DSL
> repository (repo with View structures)
> - Backend models are known to backend and DSL repository
>
> - DSL repository is TypeScript code
> - Backend is Go code
> - Clients are Swift, Kotlin, TypeScript/JS
>
>
> Can the concept of extensions or custom options help us somehow?
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/protobuf/97e3a1b2-539c-4d0f-96c4-477390b49d5an%40googlegroups.com.
