te_chris
Hey everyone. I’m working on a service that’s currently LV but will eventually have an app. The interaction will basically be the same. This has had me thinking about how I could avoid duplication with client/server interactions, while still offering a similar responsive/reactive experince on both platforms.
I’d like to avoid having to build a separate API (beyond bare necessities) and LV stack if possible so my question is: can I treat a channel as an ‘API’ interface that the LV and the App could both talk to and does anyone have any experience of this, advice/war stories they can share?
Trending in Discussions
As the title says, please share what you’ve been up to with Elixir. Whether that’s been learning it, looking into it, making stuff with i...
New
Hey there,
It’s been more than a year since we started using LiveView as our main UI library and building a whole library of UI componen...
New
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM.
Welcome Cure.
It has literally three kille...
New
Quite interesting article Google brought me. Didn’t find any mentions about it here.
What do you think in general? Would you use togethe...
New
:warning: Security advisory: Decimal DoS vulnerability
A vulnerability has been published for decimal where very large exponents can cau...
New
It would be helpful to have a list of companies worldwide that hire engineers without prior experience in Elixir. Often, it can be quite ...
New
Anyone running long-lived stateful processes on BEAM? We’re building an AI agent runtime and would love to compare notes.
We’re a small ...
New
Other Trending Topics
Hi there! We created Gust: A task orchestrator inspired by Airflow.
For those who have never heard about Aiflow, it’s a Python-based wor...
New
Beam Bots (or just BB for short) is a framework for building fault-tolerant robotics applications in Elixir using familiar OTP patterns. ...
New
Xamal is a deployment tool for Elixir apps that deploys native releases to bare metal servers over SSH. It’s a port of GitHub - basecamp/...
New
Corex is an accessible, unstyled UI component library for Phoenix that integrates Zag.js state machines using Vanilla JavaScript and Live...
New
With AI doing more of the implementation work, I’ve been wondering how much coding I should deliberately keep doing myself.
My main conc...
New
Aludel - LLM Evaluation Workbench
Aludel is an embeddable Phoenix LiveView dashboard for evaluating and comparing LLM prompts across mult...
New
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ecto-query
- #ai
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #api
- #forms
- #hex
- #security
- #metaprogramming










Showing Posts 6 to 1- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
LostKobrakai
That sounds rather wrong tbh. Event handlers in LV should handle the web ui specifics, not domain level functionality. You shouldn’t need to duplicate any logic to another API interface. That stuff should be in lower levels of your codebase. Copying boilerplate (e.g. calling into your core modules) is imo the right way to handle this, as eventual divergance of interfaces is to be expected.
D4no0
I don’t see a way to do this without writing custom JS, starting a phoenix channel is trivial currently or you could always use something like this: GitHub - Miserlou/live_json: LiveJSON - LiveView for JSON · GitHub .
te_chris
No I get that. LV is obviously sending its diffs and such and I wouldn’t want to touch it. I’m just more wondering about something like a separte channel for key persistent state mutations or similar. So you can centralise a channel api between clients for things like e.g add-blah, blah-updated. Maybe more like a shared CQRS or similar? I’m unsure. It just seems like duplication to define how these events are handled twice (once on the channel and once on the LVs).
D4no0
I would not classify liveview as an abstraction over channels, I would say that liveview uses phoenix channels to implement the desired behavior, namely abstraction of frontend interaction.
I don’t know these days, but back in the day liveview implementation was marked as internal and it is not recommended to tap into how it works, because implementation details might change in a future release.
te_chris
I’m not talking about losing the behaviour, I’m talking about creating a consistent channel interface for sending events between client and server. LV is an abstraction on top of channels already.
D4no0
By definition, what liveview does is interactive frontend without writing JS, or having a communication contract.
If you want to change this behavior, you will literally lose all the benefits liveview brings, and IMO is better to stick with a separate frontend with a separate API.