Actor client SDK requires actor implementation

[danielgerlag]

It seems the to use the JS SDK for actors, the client invoking a remote actor needs a copy of the implementation code in order to register the actor... drilling into the code, it looks like the only reason for this is to get the name of the actor type. Would it be possible to have an overload to create the proxy builder that does not require passing in the implementation, but rather just the actor type name?

[dapr-bot]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had activity in the last 60 days. It will be closed in the next 7 days unless it is tagged (pinned, good first issue, help wanted or triaged/resolved) or other activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[jasonvasquez]

Just to add, this detail is important to me as well. Within a larger application suite, I am attempting to expose an actor-enabled library to the rest of the application without exposing the implementation. As a work-around, I now have created client-side "fake" Actor implementations that share the implementation name and implement the Actor's interface. This works, but isn't ideal.

If, as an alternative, we could pass a constant identifying the Actor, that would work fine here.