I find it a bit odd how much people talk up the Rust aspect of Tauri. For most cases you'll be writing a Typescript frontend and relying on boilerplate Rust + plugins for the backend. And I'd think most of the target audience would see that as a good thing.

▲

francisl 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I working on a project using tauri with htmx. I know a bit uncommon. But the backend part use axum and htmx. No Js/Ts UI. It's fast, reliable and it work well. Plus its easy to share/reuse the lib with the server/web.

▲

rapnie 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am considering a Tauri app, but still wondering about architecture design choices, which the docs are sparse about. For instance the Web-side may constitute a more full-blown, say NextJS, webapp. And include the database persistance, say SQLite based, on the web side too, closest to the webapp. That goes against the sandboxing (and best-practice likely), where all platform-related side effects are dealt with Platform-side, implemented in Rust code. I wonder if it is a valid choice. There is a trade-off in more ease of use and straightforwardness vs. stricter sandboxing.

▲

jemmyw 2 hours ago | parent [-]

At least with Tauri it's easy to both make the choice and change it later if you want to. I think the docs are sparse because it's your decision to make. I've done it both ways and there are pros and cons. If you use the sqlite plugin and write the actual statements on the JS side then you don't need to worry about the JS<->Rust interface and sharing types. Easier to just get going. If you write your own interface then you probably want to generate TS types from Rust. I think a big advantage to the Rust interface way is that it makes it easier to have the web side be dual purpose with the same code running on the web and in Tauri - the only difference being whether it invokes a tauri call or an API call.

	▲	rapnie 20 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for that feedback. Makes me feel more comfortable with the option I have in mind.