bendk

> > I would love if we could come to a consensus on this one, but if we can't then I would be okay with merging the current proposal and...

I'm going to try to rephrase my concerns and also use some code to make it concrete. My main concern with the current code is how the [decorator class is...

> Regrettably Uniffi has to know more about the decorator that just the method names, and codegen backends don't have enough logic in them to find that out themselves. I...

What I'm not understanding is why there would be extra difficulty with the TOML file compared to the UDL file. It seems like at the very least you could use...

Mark kind of hinted at this on the call last week, but what if we combined the macro approach with a separate definition file? The file would just be 1...

That's a really interesting suggestion. When you say "serialize the necessary metadata to a file", does that mean the macros would write to a file in the `target` directory? One...

> Doesn't work with conditional compilation (reimplementing #[cfg] does not seem feasible) This seems like a very real issue to me. The other ones I mentioned have workarounds, but I...

@jplatte Would it hinder the macro work to generate the structs from `uniffi_bindgen::interface` directly, rather than generating strucst from `uniffi_meta` + a conversion function? Now that I write it out...

I think our end goals are the same, the question is how to get there. > Why would the ComponentInterface need to be serializeable when in a separate crate? In...

I think different bindings are going to want different solutions. For Swift, Kotlin, and other languages that support some quoting method, we should try to do that. For Python, Ruby...