bytedance--ui-tars-desktop
wehub-resource-sync
1a390b2815
Scorecard supply-chain security / Scorecard analysis (push) Failing after 1s
/ test (push) Failing after 0s
secretlint / Run secretlint to diff files (push) Failing after 1s
UI-TARS E2E Test / E2E (macos-13) (push) Has been cancelled
UI-TARS E2E Test / E2E (macos-latest) (push) Has been cancelled
UI-TARS E2E Test / E2E (windows-latest) (push) Has been cancelled
CI Test, Typecheck / Test & Typecheck (push) Has been cancelled
85 行
2.0 KiB
Markdown
85 行
2.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
start_date: 2025-01-28
|
|
rfc_pr:
|
|
issue:
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# RFC Template
|
|
|
|
## Summary
|
|
|
|
Brief explanation of the proposed change for UI-TARS-desktop.
|
|
|
|
## Basic example
|
|
|
|
If the proposal involves API changes or new component interactions, provide a concise code/usage example. Omit if not applicable.
|
|
|
|
## Motivation
|
|
|
|
Why is this change essential for UI-TARS-desktop? What specific problems does it address? What limitations or user pain points will it resolve? Focus on objective technical reasons rather than subjective preferences.
|
|
|
|
## Detailed design
|
|
|
|
Technical specification of the proposal including:
|
|
|
|
- Architectural diagrams (if applicable)
|
|
- Modified/new APIs
|
|
- Data flow changes
|
|
- Lifecycle impacts
|
|
- Error handling strategies
|
|
- Compatibility with existing TARS patterns
|
|
- Platform considerations (Windows/macOS/Linux)
|
|
|
|
Provide sufficient detail for core maintainers to evaluate implementation feasibility.
|
|
|
|
## Drawbacks
|
|
|
|
Critical considerations including:
|
|
|
|
- Increased binary size/performance impact
|
|
- Maintenance complexity
|
|
- Security implications
|
|
- Cross-platform consistency risks
|
|
- Developer experience impacts
|
|
- Migration challenges for existing integrations
|
|
|
|
## Alternatives
|
|
|
|
What other approaches were considered? Include:
|
|
|
|
- Third-party solutions
|
|
- Partial implementations
|
|
- Alternative architectural patterns
|
|
- Status quo analysis
|
|
|
|
## Adoption strategy
|
|
|
|
How will this change be rolled out? Address:
|
|
|
|
- Phased implementation plan
|
|
- Backward compatibility measures
|
|
- Deprecation timelines (if any)
|
|
- Documentation updates
|
|
- Testing requirements (unit tests, E2E scenarios)
|
|
|
|
## How we teach this
|
|
|
|
Educational aspects covering:
|
|
|
|
- Updated API documentation strategy
|
|
- Sample project updates
|
|
- Tutorial integration points
|
|
- Workshop/onboarding implications
|
|
- Error message guidance
|
|
- Debugging patterns for new features
|
|
|
|
## Unresolved questions
|
|
|
|
Open technical discussions needing resolution:
|
|
|
|
- Unvalidated performance assumptions
|
|
- Undecided implementation details
|
|
- Third-party dependency risks
|
|
- Platform-specific edge cases
|
|
- Long-term maintenance ownership
|