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

Move iOS and Android Specific Code to Their Own Packages #49

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
277 changes: 277 additions & 0 deletions proposals/0000-Move-Platforms-to-Own-Packages.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
---
title: Move iOS and Android Specific Code to Their Own Packages
author:
- Ian Meikle
date: today
---

# RFC0000: Move iOS and Android Specific Code to Their Own Packages

## Summary

Re-organize the React Native repo as a Yarn workspace monorepo, and move platform specific JS and native code for iOS and Android into their own packages.

## Basic example

Common APIs and components would remain in `react-native`:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How Windows and other platforms would provide their implementations of core components and APIs? Since imports are from react-native, not from platform-specific module, I guess that would be tricky and require certain platforms to export a minimal subset of APIs to be considered a valid platform for React Native?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Platforms can have an entry like this in their package.json which adds their platform to the haste search path:

{
  "rnpm": {
    "haste": {
      "providesModuleNodeModules": ["react-native-example"],
      "platforms": ["example"]
    }
  }
}

And if they wanted to override ExampleComponent in react-native, react-native-example would have ExampleComponent.example.js

This solution depends on Haste, so if RN wants to drop Haste in the future a solution for platform overrides will need to be worked out.

I guess that would be tricky and require certain platforms to export a minimal subset of APIs to be considered a valid platform for React Native

Pretty much, or have a whole bunch of stub JS UnimplementedView files to address the Haste missing files errors


```js
import {AppRegistry, Alert, View} from 'react-native';
```

Platform-specific components and APIs would be imported from the platform's module:

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about things that should be cross platform but just haven’t been implemented on the other platform yet? Do they start in a platform specific package and move into the core package later?

Or is it more based on the particular api/component in which case there would still be some things in core that don’t work on both platforms?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about things that should be cross platform but just haven’t been implemented on the other platform yet?

I was thinking that an UnimplementedView stub should be in the main package and an implemented JS file would be in the platform module.

Like in the case of CheckBox, a UnimplementedView stub CheckBox.js would be in the main package, and a CheckBox.android.js in react-native-android

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think the core should be slim enough that its pretty much required to have it all implemented. So for instance, checkbox wouldn't be part of core.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed, would be good to keep core to a minimum "This is what you need to implement to be considered a full React Native implementation". Other stuff could be implemented by the platform implementers by submitting pull requests to the Slimmen'd repos (like what will probably happen with Windows' WebView implementation)

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What about a module that has 4 methods out of 5 that work on both platforms and wants to provide one, additional, e.g. Alert.promptIOS? Would the developer need to make an additional Alert module under react-native-ios package? Wouldn't that cause troubles for developers to decide what file to use? Should Alert from react-native-ios "extend" Alert from react-native to keep its methods? Just general questions

Copy link
Member Author

@empyrical empyrical Nov 4, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I do think some kinds of revamp of Alert is very much needed. There's this if statement in Alert that basically requires a platform dev to make a platform fork of Alert. Example from RNWindows:

    if (Platform.OS === 'ios') {
      if (typeof type !== 'undefined') {
        console.warn('Alert.alert() with a 5th "type" parameter is deprecated and will be removed. Use AlertIOS.prompt() instead.');
        AlertIOS.alert(title, message, buttons, type);
        return;
      }
      AlertIOS.alert(title, message, buttons);
    } else if (Platform.OS === 'android') {
      AlertAndroid.alert(title, message, buttons, options);
    } else if (Platform.OS === 'windows') {
      AlertWindows.alert(title, message, buttons, options);
    }

And because it depends on requiring AlertIOS, it looks like some kind of modification will need to be made to this file in the split.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Doing a suffix on the method is still bad because just because Android doesn't support it doesn't mean that Windows/MacOS/Ubuntu/other third party platforms won't. Rather than baking it into the method name it should just be documented which platforms it supports.


```js
// iOS
import {Alert} from 'react-native-ios';

// Android
import {Permissions} from 'react-native-android';
```

## Motivation

React Native is for more than just iOS and Android - there are renderers for Windows, macOS, and even the DOM and even more on their way.

This is analogous to when React [split into React and ReactDOM](https://reactjs.org/blog/2015/09/10/react-v0.14-rc1.html#two-packages-react-and-react-dom), and (in my opinion at least!) the separation of these modules was a benefit to the renderers of other platforms.

Splitting iOS and Android out into their own packages would make them functionally like out-of-tree platforms. The process of doing this split should hopefully strengthen support for out-of-tree platforms as a result.

The process of re-organizing these modules will, I hope, also result in more components being found that can be split out into their own repo and package as part of the slimmening.

Platform-specific APIs could drop the platform suffix from their name. `PermissionsAndroid` could just be `Permissions` for example.

React Native being a Yarn workspace might make it easier to make other modules that should be developed and released alongside the main project. It would be easier to make a more advanced RNTester app in-tree with its own set of dependencies, for example.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

RNTester being its own package in-tree is unrelated and could happen anyways right? Perhaps that should be part of the RNTester proposal.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if that could be done without re-arranging it into a monorepo first, Yarn requires the top level package.json of a repo to be private in a yarn workspace.

But to implement this idea, I was thinking I would first do a "smaller" pull request that just sets up a yarn workspace and nothing else, and that could get done sooner. Maybe the yarn workspace could be a separate proposal this one is dependant on?


(**UPDATE**: I am working on a pull request to set up a monorepo, so other proposals could benefit from it regardless of this proposal's progress)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Just fyi: This can probably not be done on GitHub and will have to be done at FB in one go.


The IOS-only and Android-only files and folders at the top level of the repo could get organized into their respective packages.

## Detailed design

### Module exports:

**Components**

* `react-native`
* **Components**
* `AccessibilityInfo`
* `ActivityIndicator`
* `ART`
* `Button`
* `CheckBox` (I am unsure about this one. Android-only in main tree, but generic enough other platforms could implement it. Possible slimmening candidate?)
* `FlatList`
* `Image`
* `ImageBackground`
* `ImageEditor`
* `ImageStore`
* `KeyboardAvoidingView`
* `ListView` (DEPRECATED. may be removed by the time of the split)
* `Modal`
* `Picker`
* `SafeAreaView`
* `ScrollView`
* `SectionList`
* `Slider`
* `Switch`
* `RefreshControl`
* `StatusBar`
* `SwipeableFlatList`
* `SwipeableListView` (DEPRECATED)
* `Text`
* `TextInput`
* `Touchable`
* `TouchableHighlight`
* `TouchableNativeFeedback`
* `TouchableOpacity`
* `TouchableWithoutFeedback`
* `View`
* `VirtualizedList`
* `WebView` (DEPRECATED. [Moved to its own repo](https://github.com/react-native-community/react-native-webview))
* **APIs**
* `Alert`
* `Animated`
* `AppRegistry`
* `AppState`
* `AsyncStorage`
* `BackHandler`
* `CameraRoll`
* `Clipboard`
* `DeviceInfo`
* `Dimensions`
* `Easing`
* `findNodeHandle`
* `I18nManager`
* `InteractionManager`
* `Keyboard`
* `LayoutAnimation`
* `Linking`
* `NativeEventEmitter`
* `NetInfo`
* `PanResponder`
* `PixelRatio`
* `Settings`
* `Share`
* `StyleSheet`
* `Systrace`
* `TVEventHandler`
* `UIManager`
* `unstable_batchedUpdates`
* `Vibration`
* `YellowBox`
* **Plugins**
* `DeviceEventEmitter`
* `NativeAppEventEmitter`
* `NativeModules`
* `Platform`
* `processColor`
* `requireNativeComponent`
* `takeSnapshot`
* **Deprecated PropTypes**
* `ColorPropType`
* `EdgeInsetsPropType`
* `PointPropType`
* `ViewPropTypes`

* `react-native-ios`
* **Components**
* `DatePicker` (was `DatePickerIOS`)
* `InputAccessoryView`

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is an example of something I could imagine being standard across many platforms. Also, should probably be pulled out with slimmening regardless.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Will move this to the main package when I revise this 👍

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Honestly I think this particular one should just get moved to a community rep. But that is a conversation for slimmening. Nothing to worry about for this proposal.

* `MaskedView` (was `MaskedViewIOS`)
* `Picker` (was `PickerIOS`)
* `ProgressView` (was `ProgressViewIOS`)
* `SegmentedControl` (was `SegmentedControlIOS`)
* `SnapshotView` (was `SnapshotViewIOS`)
* `TabBar` (was `TabBarIOS`)
* **APIs**
* `ActionSheet` (was `ActionSheetIOS`)
* `Alert` (was `AlertIOS`)
* `ImagePicker` (was `ImagePickerIOS`)
* `PushNotification` (was `PushNotificationIOS`)
* `StatusBar` (was `StatusBarIOS`)
* `Vibration` (was `VibrationIOS`)

* `react-native-android`
* **Components**
* `DrawerLayout` (was `DrawerLayoutAndroid`)
* `ProgressBar` (was `ProgressBarAndroid`)
* `Toast` (was `ToastAndroid`)
* `Toolbar` (was `ToolbarAndroid`)
* `ViewPager` (was `ViewPagerAndroid`)
* **APIs**
* `DatePicker` (was `DatePickerAndroid`)
* `Permissions` (was `PermissionsAndroid`)
* `TimePicker` (was `TimePickerAndroid`)


### Hypothetical project overview (non-exhaustive)

This is the *very basic* overview of what the GitHub repo could look like:

```
-| project root
--📁 {.circleci, .github, bots}/
--📁 flow/
--📁 flow-github/
--📁 packages/
---📁 react-native/
----📁 Libraries/ (All cross-platform JS)
----📁 ReactCommon/
----📁 scripts/
-----📄 launchPackager.bat
-----📄 launchPackager.command
-----📄 packager.sh
----📁 tools/ (contains bzl build-defs)
---📁 react-native-ios/
----📁 Libraries/
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Related but perhaps another topic: I'd like to reconsider how the directories are named/organized in the RN project, which I've found a bit confusing and idiosyncratic for what most see as a "JS project". For example, the exported components and APIs are defined in a variety of places in the repo. (I tried to simplify the situation for contributors to React Native for Web by putting all the public exports in a flat directory)

----📁 React/
----📁 scripts/
-----📄 ios-configure-glog.sh
-----📄 ios-install-third-party.sh
-----📄 react-native-xcode.sh
----📁 third-party-podspecs/
---📁 react-native-android/
----📁 gradle/
----📁 keystores/
----📁 Libraries/
----📁 ReactAndroid/
---📁 react-native-git-upgrade/
--📁 RNTester/
--📁 scripts/ (CI, sync, etc. scripts)
--📄 package.json (for the Yarn workspace)
--📄 {readme, contributing, CoC, other markdown docs}
```

I am not fully sure what the layout of the local-cli stuff will end up needing to be after this; with [this proposal](https://github.com/react-native-community/discussions-and-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0002-Extracted-Command-Line-Tools.md) the bulk of it will end up getting moved to another repo anyways.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Side note: when the cli is moved out it might be a good time to start working towards making this project packager agnostic, and pointing people to working packagers rather than including one in the project. This will surface issues related to the existing packager situation, like OSS RN packages being published without being compiled and being unable to run on pretty much any platform without first being passed through Babel using the RN babel config.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OSS RN packages being published without being compiled

IMO I kinda like them shipping un-compiled. Especially with JSI allowing for different JS engines to be used with React Native, it would be useful for it to be easy to use different babel configs for different engines (imo). Biggest thing would be opting in to using native async/await where available for a cleaner error stack trace

Would be worth a discussion of its own for sure!

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's a difference between not compiling parts of the code that are effectively js standards but not available in older environments, and publishing code with early stage proposals


ReactIOS and ReactAndroid would get entries in their `package.json` like this:

```json
{
"rnpm": {
"haste": {
"providesModuleNodeModules": ["react-native-ios"],
"platforms": ["ios"]
}
}
}
```

Platform-specific Flow prop types will probably need to stay bundled together in the main package. Ideally it could be set up so if you didn't have `react-native-ios` installed the iOS-only View props wouldn't show up when typechecking, for example. But I don't know if there's a way to do that with Flow yet. Would need [this issue](https://github.com/facebook/flow/issues/396) to be resolved, probably.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How do other platforms like windows extend the props of components to provide platform specific props?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the case of RNWindows they use the platform-overridable prop-types files:

https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows/blob/master/Libraries/Components/View/PlatformViewPropTypes.windows.js
https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows/blob/master/Libraries/Text/TextPropTypes.windows.js

They don't seem to use platform overridable flow props anywhere. But a platform-specific X-Types.platform.js would be awkward, because you wouldn't be able to see the flow types for windows when flow checking *.ios.js files for example.


The native build scripts (gradle, BUCK, xcode, etc.) will all need to be updated for the new code locations. Great care must be taken to not break the existing large ecosystem of native compnents on NPM!

## Drawbacks

- A lot of old open pull requests will need to be rebased if the codebase is re-arranged
- The `react-native-ios` and `react-native-android` packages on NPM already have the following versions on them:
> - `react-native-ios`: `1.0.0`, `1.0.1`, `1.1.0`
> - `react-native-android`: `1.0.0`, `2.0.0`, `3.0.0`

This will make React Native's future semver bump to `1.0.0` awkward, if not impossible. Unless it does what React did and jumps to version `60.0.0` or something like that. Or starts at version `4.0.0`, which seems kinda random. NPM also says that for various technical and security reasons, these versions can not be deleted and re-used. I've `npm deprecate`d them, which is the best I can do sadly.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Alternatively we use package names react-ios and react-android (reserved by FB and nice as they drops the "native" part of the name). The former would also open the door to using react-web and react-windows (we'd need those transferred to FB) for web/windows-specific modules.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's definitely an option! That idiom would make it awkward for react-native-dom however, since react-dom already exists.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think react-dom as a package name makes sense for what it does, and wouldn't make sense as a name for a package in this context. We'd only want a single web implementation, so I don't think we need to worry about mapping every OSS RN variant to an equivalent package in RN.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Def. worth making another issue for, since your idea of having information about out-of-tree platforms in the main repo could probably be done independently of this proposal.

We'd only want a single web implementation

RNWeb and RNDom are different enough projects I think there's room for the both of them. But I really don't know about dropping the native from the name, because a "React renderer" and a "React Native renderer/platform" are very different things.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

what about going babel’s route and going namespaced.

@react-native/core
@react-native/ios
@react-native/android
@react-native/windows
@react-native/tvos

it would allow for semver 1.0.0 and identify official packages ie react-native-web would immediately be identifiable as an external project.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We tried to reach out to the NPM user who owned that namespace, but had no luck in securing it. Would be a good option IMO if we could, however! 👍

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

sorry I deleted that message. I was mistaken in my search.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

no worries! FWIW, facebook DOES own @react now. I could see if the owner of @reactnative would be open to transferring it, but minus the dash - is a bit weird

Copy link

@deavial deavial Nov 8, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I couldn't see who owned @react because the profile was empty. I reached out to npm asking to be pointed to who has both @react and @reactnative earlier, pointing them here.

If @react is now under facebooks control, if they added both the react and react native community to the org... this would be a great naming convention if everyone got on board:

@react/core
@react/native-core
@react/prop-types
@react/dom
@react/ios
@react/android
@react/web
@react/ etc etc etc

Very straightforward.

EDITED sorry I didn't quote them and tagged instead :P

Copy link
Member Author

@empyrical empyrical Nov 8, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that (and @necolas' suggestion to use react-ios as well) would probably make sense (especially with version 1 being freed up in them) but would require some more work 👍

I've updated the proposal with both of these formats


Using other names like: `@react/ios` and `react-ios` are also possibilities, since the React and React Native projects might be converging more in the future.
- While community modules that want to cover multiple versions of RN could use the "bridge" versions of the `{ios,android}` modules to ease the transition there are packages that are not maintained that would get broken by a split like this. This is also an issue for Slimmened modules as well.
- Even with a codemod to ease the transition, I don't imagine that transitioning codebases over will be something that is trivial. Maybe more than 2 versions should be given as a grace period before everything moves over?
- Old documentation and tutorials will need to be updated.

## Alternatives

I believe that this is the best way forward for helping improve React Native's third party platform support, and also for helping improve the existing in-tree platforms by organizing platform-specific things into their own packages. If it's not, hopefully this will spawn discussions on better alternatives.

## Adoption strategy

There could be "bridge" versions of the `react-native-{ios,android}` modules for pre-split versions of React Native that simply import platform specific stuff from `react-native`. This would make it easier for people to make React Native addons that cover wider ranges of RN versions

For a release or so, `react-native-{ios,android}` should probably be thin modules that just re-import stuff from `react-native` before the code actually gets moved over, to help people transition.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Or the other way where React Native keeps exposing things from the native packages but the changes can be made in the native packages directly.


For example, the import for `DatePickerIOS` in `react-native` would look like:

```js
get DatePickerIOS() {
warnMoved('DatePickerIOS', 'react-native-ios', 'DatePicker');
return require('DatePickerIOS');
},
```

(where `warnMoved` is a hypothetical function warning once that an api is moved to another module)

And `react-native-ios` would use Haste to import the module from `react-native`:
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Haste is one of those things that is a barrier to OSS contributors; we could probably do this the "standard" way instead.

Copy link
Member Author

@empyrical empyrical Nov 2, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, that would definitely also make using other packagers (like parcel and webpack) less complex too. @gaearon removed haste from react a while ago and that could be looked to as an example of what could be done:

facebook/react#11303

Haste, however, happens to be really good at doing platform-specific overrides across multiple packages. A good replacement solution for this would need to be devised. Definitely a subject worthy of a proposal/discussion of its own probably!


```js
get DatePicker() {
return require('DatePickerIOS');
},
```

Alternatively RNIOS and RNAndroid could be a `peerDependency` of React Native, and it would re-import the modules from the platform modules.

Code-mods could be written to help with the transition. React and ReactDOM could be looked to as an example on how to do a transition like this as painlessly as possible.

## How we teach this

A documentation page laying out where all these components are getting moved around to should be made. This page could also document where Slimmen'd modules got moved to.

## Unresolved questions

* Should `react-native init` auto-install `{ios,android}` by default? (I lean towards yes) If so, should there be a command line switch to not install them if the user wishes?