38 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
38 lines
1.5 KiB
Markdown
|
# ADR 0002: IPC Bridge Pattern
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* Status: accepted
|
||
|
|
* Deciders: Project Maintainers
|
||
|
|
* Date: 2025-05-15
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Context and Problem Statement
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Wails allows direct binding of Go methods to the frontend. However, as the number of services and methods grows, managing individual bindings for every service becomes complex. We need a way to decouple the frontend from the internal service structure.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Decision Drivers
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* Decoupling services from the frontend runtime.
|
||
|
|
* Simplified binding generation.
|
||
|
|
* Centralized message routing.
|
||
|
|
* Uniform internal and external communication.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Considered Options
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* Direct Wails Bindings for all services.
|
||
|
|
* IPC Bridge Pattern (Centralized ACTION handler).
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Decision Outcome
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Chosen option: "IPC Bridge Pattern", because it allows services to remain agnostic of the frontend runtime. Only the `Core` service is registered with Wails, and it exposes a single `ACTION` method that routes messages to the appropriate service based on an IPC handler.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Positive Consequences
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* Only one Wails service needs to be registered.
|
||
|
|
* Services can be tested independently of Wails.
|
||
|
|
* Adding new functionality to a service doesn't necessarily require regenerating frontend bindings.
|
||
|
|
* Consistency between frontend-to-backend and backend-to-backend communication.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Negative Consequences
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
* Less type safety out-of-the-box in the frontend for specific service methods (though this can be improved with manual type definitions or codegen).
|
||
|
|
* Requires services to implement `HandleIPCEvents`.
|