For example will the return value of

COUNTER.get('myCounter').currentValue()

be typed as a number if the DO method returns a number?

Looks like there's no typescript stuff going on, so you'd have to do something like

as ReturnType<typeof Counter.currentValue>

I would do something like const MyObj = DO.get(‘foo’) as MyDurableClass

Oh wow, that's a great idea

to just get the full typings at once

I’ve had to use that pattern at various places throughout worker code, esp as you pile on more magic… it just reconnects the types that may have been lost or difficult to drill through your app

I could probably even do some

Pick

magic so it only exposes router methods

Although looking at the code it exposes anything that

isValidMethod

except for fetch

Yeah, I don’t think it would grab the internal itty-durable methods

constructor method?

I assume the types would refer to your own constructor, if you have one

I’m in the middle of a massive overhaul of itty-router, bringing CORS and extras into the main lib, so itty-durable is next for a full TS conversion at least where it matters)

Awesome!

I do wonder how the trpc approach differs. I do like that you're basically just writing functions that get passed the DO as ctx

And that the requests actually get validated using zod

Have a link for that?

Personally I don’t love tRPC much myself, but that’s just cuz it feels boilerplatey to me… I’m sure it’s great for folks that like it!

Interesting how it's flipped on its head.. with this approach it creates a DO class for you based on your router

Where as itty-durable you define the class but subclass something

The example looks rather succinct

Haha yeah… see, that’s the part that I didn’t want to have to think about when making DOs. I only want to care about the business logic… in the case of a counter for instance, just the value and the increment. All the rest of the native DO code was noise IMO… the storage bits, fetch, internal routing, even building a request from the Worker.

Looks like this takes a similar approach, you just define a tRPC router with your business logic

Obviously doesn't have the persistence magic though

Obviously the definition isn't as minimal because you write the method input shape using a zod scheme instead of just method arguments, but that gets you type safety

I guess it also doesn't have the idea of querying arbitrary properties

I think just writing your DO a in full TS and casting the stub as you grab it in the Worker should still get you that… I’ll do some tests to confirm this 🙂

I guess the only problem with this is you're still not validating, just asserting

I sometimes forget about that feature… I basically always use the methods to interact w the DO now, not awaiting direct props

Although I'm not sure when that might cause problems..