Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Missing standard communication event definition #22

Closed
softwindren opened this issue Mar 1, 2022 · 4 comments
Closed

Missing standard communication event definition #22

softwindren opened this issue Mar 1, 2022 · 4 comments

Comments

@softwindren
Copy link

Considering the existing implementations of MiniApp widely use the architecture that separates logic from rendering (the white paper describes this as well). Usually, the MiniApp framework and native framework are preconfigured in a Super-App to process API invoking of MiniApp. However, the definition of communication events between MiniApp and MiniApp framework is not found in the lifecycle document. If there is no unified interface, how can the standard MiniApp of vendor foo run in the App of vendor bar? Considering the value of standards and interconnection requirements, I think this part should be standardized.

image

@QingAn
Copy link
Contributor

QingAn commented Mar 24, 2022

Considering the value of standards and interconnection requirements, I think this part should be standardized.

Will discuss it within MiniApp WG

@QingAn
Copy link
Contributor

QingAn commented Mar 24, 2022

We had a brief discussion in MiniApp WG 2022-03-24 meeting.
We are wondering that Who will use this interface? Developers or MiniApp Platform vendors?
It is a topic that needs further discussion. @softwindren Could you attend our next WG meeting?

@Sharonzd
Copy link

@ZiTao

@espinr
Copy link

espinr commented Nov 7, 2023

The scope of this issue is related to the implementation of the JS bridge in the user agents. It's about how to define an abstract API for communication between the user agent and the native features in the OS.

It could be interesting to explore, but I think it's not related to the lifecycle specification. So I think you can close this issue. I also invite @softwindren to think more about the idea and submit a more solid proposal in the future. Happy to follow up!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants