5 ms·

I've been following tauri for a bit. It seems very cool and interesting but I've always wondered - what are the use cases for putting your app in a webview inst

by kayson 2y ago

I've been following tauri for a bit. It seems very cool and interesting but I've always wondered - what are the use cases for putting your app in a webview instead of using the browser? Everything I've thought of would work just as well.

lwhsiao 2y ago
Is it not lighter weight?
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Not lighter weight than a website because it is a website. The only advantages are you can ship parts of your app as native code, and you aren't constrained by the browser permission model.
  - FFFXXX 2y ago
    One interesting usecase is that you can run a tauri app without any webview windows just as a system tray icon and only spawn a webview window when necessary. This kind of makes it way more lightweight but only in some situations (obv. heavily depending on the functionality of the app).
    - runevault 2y ago
      Would this be for a service style app that happens to have a UI when you need to configure it? If so that's an... interesting idea, but considering the UI is less important I'd probably mind it less (as someone who is not a fan of Electron apps).
      - theultdev 2y ago
        I built a syncing tool that needed to run in the background with a simple UI to control it. I used tauri so I could easily make that cross-platform toolbar app. Some menu items spawn a webview (things like settings), everything else is in Rust.
pdpi 2y ago
The goal is to make a standalone desktop app with access to local resources, so the question is "why should you put your app in a webview instead of Electron or a native toolkit?" The answer is that Electron forces you to carry a whole Chrome installation around, which is unnecessarily heavy, and (AIUI) you have a node.js backend giving you the means to touch the actual OS, whereas Tauri lets you write Rust (YMMV as to whether that's an advantage). Both Tauri and Electron let you use a web-based interface instead of mucking about with native widgets, which are a pain for cross-platform development.
- cute_boi 2y ago
  Additionally, we don't have to package whole node js thing.
jmnicolas 2y ago
For example a reader app where you can't host everything on the server. My ebooks collection is 1TB big, and my videos are something like 20TB.
epsilonfm 2y ago
[dead]
- awake6711 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sieabahlpark 2y ago
    [dead]
brigadier132 2y ago
Write once run everywhere is the holy grail of app development and the browser is the only realistic way of achieving this.
jauntywundrkind 2y ago
Can anyone explain what Tauri or webviews offer that makes them a good choice over a local-http-server webapps? Imo, as a user, Webview, no thanks. Local webapps, yes please. There really isn't a good reason for webviews or electron/tauri that I can tell? Why some people love love love native apps, to the extent they'd rather a dressed up webapps is confusing to me. If it's already a webapps, hell yeah give me the user-agency of extensions, browser history, tabs, back buttons, and hyperlinks or give me death! Anything but the power-stripping captive-audience of native apps! It would be much better to package your app as a small daemon that hosts a localhost webserver. The daemon can talk to all the system APIs it needs to. Add a desktop icon or shortcut that opens the localhost webpage. The daemon can present just a regular HTML hypertext webapps as usual, so all the usual bits of user-agency can slot into the overall experience. Theres a lot of usenet-related apps that work like this, that run as daemons, and have web interfaces. Sunshine game streaming too. It's be great to have some massively multi-platform http-headed app frameworks! That does seem semi missing, especially wrt mobile integration.
- TheCleric 2y ago
  You are absolutely the exception there, especially if you are talking about an average low tech user.
  - jauntywundrkind 2y ago
    I don't have any understanding why that would be though. Even if it is true, is there a reason or is it happenstance / path-dependence? It seems so inferior to have the same thing but lose access to the browser's suite of tools/capabilities. What could possibly change other people's opinion or what should I use to reconsider my perspective?
    - TheCleric 2y ago
      When it comes to a non-hosted web app most non-technical users would have no concept or ability to run a local web server whereas “install this app” is something they’re familiar with. I’m talking from a position of “I have an app that I want to distribute to a population of end users.” If that population happens to be technical your solution would likely work fine. As well if you’re not distributing apps to end users you can do what’s right for you. But if you are you have to meet your users where they’re at. As well operating outside of the browser has the advantage of OS integration (tray access, alt tab support, etc).
duped 2y ago
I mean there are so many reasons why you would want to do this it's impossible to enumerate them all. Key command overrides are a great example of bad behavior on the web that is essential to UX in a native app. Or mouse pointer control. File system access and other native APIs the browser doesn't expose, or makes a pain.
hobofan 2y ago
You build something that needs access to to the filesystem? -> No other choice than a desktop app. (Chrome has some limited APIs around that, but AFAIK only sandboxes ones and not e.g. existing directories)
flessner 2y ago
There are many things web browser can technically do nowadays, but aren't great or not supported in all browser. - File System (Obsidian, Logseq) - Push Notifications (IM, Social Media, Email) - USB/Bluetooth (Doesn't work in Safari?) - Global Hotkeys (Raycast) - Interfacing with other local Apps (localhost is often blocked)
codeptualize 2y ago
Anything that needs os access, to name some things: menu bar apps, clipboard access, file system, multi window, etc etc. You can do a lot of things in the browser, but usually it's limited (mainly for security reasons). Having it be an app allows you to better integrate with the OS.
Klonoar 2y ago
For Slack & co, being able to be on the native application dock (for the average user) instead of buried in a tab is considered a significant visibility boost. It’s also something that came about from when web apps on desktop/PWA didn’t have nearly as much reach. With e.g modern macOS support for PWAs you might be able to get away with just the web app now, depending on your target customer.
ktosobcy 2y ago
Sadly instead of having native apps we have "web" monstrosities... each sporting custom "fancy" UI instead of following the OS native style…
- traveler1 2y ago
  Because WinUI and QT are so glamorous and offer a super intuitive development experience. /s
  - sirwhinesalot 2y ago
    Best part is that neither of those follows the "native style" either. There's no dark uxtheme provided by windows, so Qt falls back to their fusion style. Even the "native" light theme doesn't follow the new "fluent" style so that's also a shitshow. As for WinUI 3, apps are supposed to bundle it, so if you target Windows 11 and run the app on Windows 10, it'll look all rounded and drop-shadowy instead of flat like native Windows 10 apps. Great stuff.
  - ktosobcy 2y ago
    TBH I'd take QT app over any electron/web app... it still looks more consistent and matches the OS. Heck, even Java Swing (IDEA) looks better and feels more native than any electron crap.
    - pjmlp 2y ago
      Spot on, even if I do mostly Web nowadays to pay the bills.
    - frou_dh 2y ago
      IDEA is surely the ultimate gold-plated Swing app. I'm sure JetBrains have had to pour in a huge amount of time and money to get results that good.
      - ktosobcy 2y ago
        Not sure... It's mostly due to used L&F. You have FlatLaf (inspired by IdeaUI). Swing is surprisingly solid platform (though it has it's quirks and sadly it's development virtually stopped years ago)
EasyMark 2y ago
I have too. I think the big deal is easy to do cross platform + reuse your javascript/css skills for gui + lower memory footprint than electron apps. I'm waiting until I see some major apps done in it.
vunderba 2y ago
It makes more of a difference for the end-user then the developer necessarily. An end-user can continue to use your electron/tauri app for years after a website has long since vanished into the infinite void. But vunderba you think to yourself and also how did I know what you were thinking just call me the amazing kreskin, "what about a PWA? - you can use that off-line". PWAs give the deceptive illusion to the laymen that they're installing an actual application as opposed to just a bunch of ephemeral stuff thrown inside the user data folder of the respective browser.

by kayson 2y ago

lwhsiao 2y ago

Is it not lighter weight?

IshKebab 2y ago
Not lighter weight than a website because it is a website. The only advantages are you can ship parts of your app as native code, and you aren't constrained by the browser permission model.
- FFFXXX 2y ago
  One interesting usecase is that you can run a tauri app without any webview windows just as a system tray icon and only spawn a webview window when necessary. This kind of makes it way more lightweight but only in some situations (obv. heavily depending on the functionality of the app).
  - runevault 2y ago
    Would this be for a service style app that happens to have a UI when you need to configure it? If so that's an... interesting idea, but considering the UI is less important I'd probably mind it less (as someone who is not a fan of Electron apps).
    - theultdev 2y ago
      I built a syncing tool that needed to run in the background with a simple UI to control it. I used tauri so I could easily make that cross-platform toolbar app. Some menu items spawn a webview (things like settings), everything else is in Rust.

pdpi 2y ago

The goal is to make a standalone desktop app with access to local resources, so the question is "why should you put your app in a webview instead of Electron or a native toolkit?" The answer is that Electron forces you to carry a whole Chrome installation around, which is unnecessarily heavy, and (AIUI) you have a node.js backend giving you the means to touch the actual OS, whereas Tauri lets you write Rust (YMMV as to whether that's an advantage). Both Tauri and Electron let you use a web-based interface instead of mucking about with native widgets, which are a pain for cross-platform development.

cute_boi 2y ago
Additionally, we don't have to package whole node js thing.

jmnicolas 2y ago

For example a reader app where you can't host everything on the server. My ebooks collection is 1TB big, and my videos are something like 20TB.

epsilonfm 2y ago

[dead]

awake6711 2y ago
[flagged]
- sieabahlpark 2y ago
  [dead]

brigadier132 2y ago

Write once run everywhere is the holy grail of app development and the browser is the only realistic way of achieving this.

jauntywundrkind 2y ago

Can anyone explain what Tauri or webviews offer that makes them a good choice over a local-http-server webapps? Imo, as a user, Webview, no thanks. Local webapps, yes please. There really isn't a good reason for webviews or electron/tauri that I can tell? Why some people love love love native apps, to the extent they'd rather a dressed up webapps is confusing to me. If it's already a webapps, hell yeah give me the user-agency of extensions, browser history, tabs, back buttons, and hyperlinks or give me death! Anything but the power-stripping captive-audience of native apps! It would be much better to package your app as a small daemon that hosts a localhost webserver. The daemon can talk to all the system APIs it needs to. Add a desktop icon or shortcut that opens the localhost webpage. The daemon can present just a regular HTML hypertext webapps as usual, so all the usual bits of user-agency can slot into the overall experience. Theres a lot of usenet-related apps that work like this, that run as daemons, and have web interfaces. Sunshine game streaming too. It's be great to have some massively multi-platform http-headed app frameworks! That does seem semi missing, especially wrt mobile integration.

TheCleric 2y ago
You are absolutely the exception there, especially if you are talking about an average low tech user.
- jauntywundrkind 2y ago
  I don't have any understanding why that would be though. Even if it is true, is there a reason or is it happenstance / path-dependence? It seems so inferior to have the same thing but lose access to the browser's suite of tools/capabilities. What could possibly change other people's opinion or what should I use to reconsider my perspective?
  - TheCleric 2y ago
    When it comes to a non-hosted web app most non-technical users would have no concept or ability to run a local web server whereas “install this app” is something they’re familiar with. I’m talking from a position of “I have an app that I want to distribute to a population of end users.” If that population happens to be technical your solution would likely work fine. As well if you’re not distributing apps to end users you can do what’s right for you. But if you are you have to meet your users where they’re at. As well operating outside of the browser has the advantage of OS integration (tray access, alt tab support, etc).

duped 2y ago

I mean there are so many reasons why you would want to do this it's impossible to enumerate them all. Key command overrides are a great example of bad behavior on the web that is essential to UX in a native app. Or mouse pointer control. File system access and other native APIs the browser doesn't expose, or makes a pain.

hobofan 2y ago

You build something that needs access to to the filesystem? -> No other choice than a desktop app. (Chrome has some limited APIs around that, but AFAIK only sandboxes ones and not e.g. existing directories)

flessner 2y ago

There are many things web browser can technically do nowadays, but aren't great or not supported in all browser. - File System (Obsidian, Logseq) - Push Notifications (IM, Social Media, Email) - USB/Bluetooth (Doesn't work in Safari?) - Global Hotkeys (Raycast) - Interfacing with other local Apps (localhost is often blocked)

codeptualize 2y ago

Anything that needs os access, to name some things: menu bar apps, clipboard access, file system, multi window, etc etc. You can do a lot of things in the browser, but usually it's limited (mainly for security reasons). Having it be an app allows you to better integrate with the OS.

Klonoar 2y ago

For Slack & co, being able to be on the native application dock (for the average user) instead of buried in a tab is considered a significant visibility boost. It’s also something that came about from when web apps on desktop/PWA didn’t have nearly as much reach. With e.g modern macOS support for PWAs you might be able to get away with just the web app now, depending on your target customer.

ktosobcy 2y ago

Sadly instead of having native apps we have "web" monstrosities... each sporting custom "fancy" UI instead of following the OS native style…

traveler1 2y ago
Because WinUI and QT are so glamorous and offer a super intuitive development experience. /s
- sirwhinesalot 2y ago
  Best part is that neither of those follows the "native style" either. There's no dark uxtheme provided by windows, so Qt falls back to their fusion style. Even the "native" light theme doesn't follow the new "fluent" style so that's also a shitshow. As for WinUI 3, apps are supposed to bundle it, so if you target Windows 11 and run the app on Windows 10, it'll look all rounded and drop-shadowy instead of flat like native Windows 10 apps. Great stuff.
- ktosobcy 2y ago
  TBH I'd take QT app over any electron/web app... it still looks more consistent and matches the OS. Heck, even Java Swing (IDEA) looks better and feels more native than any electron crap.
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Spot on, even if I do mostly Web nowadays to pay the bills.
  - frou_dh 2y ago
    IDEA is surely the ultimate gold-plated Swing app. I'm sure JetBrains have had to pour in a huge amount of time and money to get results that good.
    - ktosobcy 2y ago
      Not sure... It's mostly due to used L&F. You have FlatLaf (inspired by IdeaUI). Swing is surprisingly solid platform (though it has it's quirks and sadly it's development virtually stopped years ago)

EasyMark 2y ago

I have too. I think the big deal is easy to do cross platform + reuse your javascript/css skills for gui + lower memory footprint than electron apps. I'm waiting until I see some major apps done in it.

vunderba 2y ago

It makes more of a difference for the end-user then the developer necessarily. An end-user can continue to use your electron/tauri app for years after a website has long since vanished into the infinite void. But vunderba you think to yourself and also how did I know what you were thinking just call me the amazing kreskin, "what about a PWA? - you can use that off-line". PWAs give the deceptive illusion to the laymen that they're installing an actual application as opposed to just a bunch of ephemeral stuff thrown inside the user data folder of the respective browser.