Decompose VS compose-destinations

I use Decompose, although I also have a kmp project which that supports. I find the compose extensions providing a very easy API when integrating with compose.

For one of our apps we used https://arkivanov.github.io/Decompose/ for navigation. It is mentioned in the Compose Multiplatform repo, but we found it pretty obscure to use and it has some confusing concepts built in.

View model is Googles recommended approach, but there are other approaches out their you can use like decompose

When you are building your app in KMM, sometimes you need to pack some libraries along with project files in the shared module. For example if you are using Decompose you need to access it's Value class in Swift.

I don't have much experience with conductor, so I'm curious what your concerns about lifecycle is lacking compared to fragments? But if your team already knows that framework I might just stick with views over fragments. I see there is a compose integration if you do ever plan on picking that up with conductor. Otherwise compose makes fragments obsolete and your team already knows conductor. I do agree the navigation story in compose is not mature especially after jetpack compose navigation. But there are other 3rd party libraries like compose destinations or decompose, but would be nice to see something better 1st party.

I personally like decompose for its testability, clear separation of concerns, and apis for compose animations. Plus it's multiplatform so you can use it for other kmp targets.

Full discretion, all my new apps are built using mvi with MVIKotlin and decompose for the compose extensions for navigation animations. A sample project I have built with that architecture can be found here.

Check out Decompose, it's multiplatform - https://github.com/arkivanov/Decompose

Decompose

This time is about navigation, when raamcosta ( https://github.com/raamcosta/compose-destinations) in jetpack compose

The biggest help of all by far was Compose Destinations. It takes away all the boilerplate of maintaining your routes. A simple way to not have to create all those routes yourself with placeholders etc, including deeplink patterns and all. It generates all of that for you in a typesafe way. Just check the basic example on GitHub or the dedicated documentation website.

Here is a great solution for navigation in compose. Actually this is what Google should have done in the first place https://github.com/raamcosta/compose-destinations

Compose destinations is another alternative: https://github.com/raamcosta/compose-destinations

Hey, thanks for sharing here. Do you mind sharing how exactly this library is different from this one https://github.com/raamcosta/compose-destinations and why one would use one over the other?

I don't have much experience with conductor, so I'm curious what your concerns about lifecycle is lacking compared to fragments? But if your team already knows that framework I might just stick with views over fragments. I see there is a compose integration if you do ever plan on picking that up with conductor. Otherwise compose makes fragments obsolete and your team already knows conductor. I do agree the navigation story in compose is not mature especially after jetpack compose navigation. But there are other 3rd party libraries like compose destinations or decompose, but would be nice to see something better 1st party.

I can't recommend the vanilla compose navigation from Google, but the community has built others like compose destinations which is pretty good.

Compose Destinations