Add a router that allows for protobuf defined services#371
Open
Add a router that allows for protobuf defined services#371
Conversation
7a1d6f0 to
28a72ce
Compare
Monkatraz
commented
Apr 9, 2026
28a72ce to
0e2728f
Compare
0e2728f to
77d06bf
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.

Why
For distributed versioned server use, using River is a bit challenging - it's hard to do migrations and in some repository setups it can be hard to share types.
However, River's protocol and transport is exceptionally well tuned for browsers, capable of multiplexing, bidirectional streaming, and session state.
If we allowed for protobuf, we solve the migration problems and type sharing while retaining all the advantages of River's transport.
What changed
Added a new export path via
/protobufthat exposes basically an equivalent of/router. It has its own client, server, etc.You use everything almost identically to how you use normal River. The main distinctions are:
.rpc,.stream, etc. since the client knows the protobuf spec.reqInit.Compared to normal River with Typebox, you lose:
What you gain is:
Example:
A new codec has been added as well that allows a pure protobuf based transport without msgpacking most messages.
Versioning
We should have a new version but none of this afaik is breaking. Bundle sizes shouldn't increase either with tree shaking because the buf dependencies are isolated to imports from
./protobuf.