compose-destinations VS workflow

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

Otherwise there's solutions like Squares Workflow that afaik support both View and Compose

I've been playing around with Square's Workflow in a side project and have liked it a lot.