Skip to content

docs: adopt Rive's "new runtime" / "legacy runtime" terminology - #351

Merged
mfazekas merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
docs/new-runtime-terminology
Jul 21, 2026
Merged

docs: adopt Rive's "new runtime" / "legacy runtime" terminology#351
mfazekas merged 5 commits into
mainfrom
docs/new-runtime-terminology

Conversation

@mfazekas

@mfazekas mfazekas commented Jul 20, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Aligns our wording with Rive's official docs, which call the CommandQueue-based runtimes the "New Runtime" (Apple) / "New Compose API" (Android) and the previous ones "legacy" — "experimental" was our own term and is now off-message.

  1. Docs and spec JSDoc use the new/legacy vocabulary; user-facing error messages now say e.g. "not supported by the new runtime — use data binding".
  2. API docs describe plain runtime behavior instead of comparing backends: the backend switch is for internal behavior-comparison testing only, so getBackend() is documented @internal (its 'experimental' | 'legacy' return value is unchanged), the updateReferencedAssets warning no longer suggests switching to the legacy backend, and backend talk lives only in the contributor guide (docs/runtime-backends.md).
  3. Adds docs/migrating-to-0.5.md: migrate to the async APIs on 0.4.x (full deprecated→replacement table), try the 0.5 beta, 0.5 stable keeps runtime deprecation warnings, and removal of the deprecated APIs is planned for 0.6.
  4. The legacy runtime itself carries no removal-version commitment — "a future release once the new runtime has fully proven out (not necessarily 0.6)" — so the fallback stays available through a potentially breaking 0.6.

No behavior change; the only code deltas are two warning-message strings.

mfazekas added 3 commits July 20, 2026 15:43
Rive's docs call the CommandQueue-based runtimes the "New Runtime"
(Apple) / "New Compose API" (Android) and the previous ones "legacy" -
"experimental" is our own invention and now off-message. Update docs and
spec JSDoc to the new/legacy vocabulary. The getBackend() API string
stays 'experimental' for stability, with a note where it is documented.
Follow-up wording sweep (comments, harness prose, user-facing error
messages now say "new runtime - use data binding" instead of
"experimental API"). The getBackend() value stays 'experimental' and the
API is now documented @internal: it exists for internal testing during
the rollout, and it and the legacy runtime are slated for removal in 0.6.
@mfazekas
mfazekas requested a review from HayesGordon July 20, 2026 13:51
…contributor-only

Backends exist only for internal behavior-comparison testing - API docs
should document what the library does, not compare runtimes users cannot
(and should not) switch. Drop the "Backend note:" framing from the spec
JSDoc, describe the actual 0.5 behavior plainly, and stop advertising the
legacy switch in the updateReferencedAssets runtime warning. The
contributor guide (docs/runtime-backends.md) remains the only place the
backend switch is described.
Comment thread docs/migrating-to-0.5.md
Keep the firm 0.6 target only for the deprecated JS APIs (the migration
driver). The legacy runtime is an internal fallback whose value is being
droppable at our discretion - 0.6 may be breaking for other reasons while
we still want the fallback available, so no version commitment for it.
@mfazekas
mfazekas requested a review from HayesGordon July 20, 2026 15:15
@mfazekas
mfazekas enabled auto-merge (squash) July 21, 2026 12:49

@HayesGordon HayesGordon left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

@mfazekas
mfazekas merged commit 17984bc into main Jul 21, 2026
15 checks passed
@mfazekas
mfazekas deleted the docs/new-runtime-terminology branch July 21, 2026 18:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants