Kotlin Multiplatform: expect/actual boundaries

Core principle

Keep common APIs semantic and stable. Put platform mechanics behind small expect/actual declarations or interfaces, and keep Android/iOS/Desktop details out of commonMain.

Boundary procedure

Name the product capability in common terms: share text, read clipboard, request haptic feedback, resolve current region.
Check whether common callers need fakes, injected dependencies, lifecycle ownership, or runtime implementation choice.
Pick the smallest boundary from the table below.
Keep the common signature free of platform types and platform vocabulary.
Put business branching in common code; keep actuals/platform bindings as translation layers.
Validate by compiling every affected source set and testing common code with a fake where possible.

Choose the boundary

Situation	Prefer
Simple compile-time platform specialization	`expect`/`actual` function, value, typealias, or leaf composable
Implementation needs injected dependencies, lifecycle ownership, runtime choice, or test fakes	Common interface plus platform binding
UI is mostly shared, one leaf differs	Common composable calling an `expect` leaf
Entire screen differs by platform	Separate platform screens behind a common navigation contract
Only constants/resources differ	Common API exposing semantic values, actual values per platform

Keep common APIs semantic

Write common APIs so callers describe intent, not platform mechanics:

kotlin

// GOOD: common API is semantic
expect fun currentRegion(): Region

kotlin

// BAD: common API leaks Android implementation
expect fun currentRegionFromAndroidLocale(context: Context): Region

The Android actual can use Locale APIs. The iOS actual can use Foundation APIs. Common callers should not know.

Keep actuals thin

Actual implementations should translate the semantic API into platform calls. If the operation needs an Activity, view controller, lifecycle owner, DI, or fakes, stop and use an interface supplied by platform code instead of an expect class:

kotlin

// commonMain
interface ShareSheet {
    suspend fun shareText(text: String)
}

kotlin

// androidMain
class AndroidShareSheet(
    private val activity: Activity,
) : ShareSheet {
    override suspend fun shareText(text: String) {
        val intent = Intent(Intent.ACTION_SEND)
            .setType("text/plain")
            .putExtra(Intent.EXTRA_TEXT, text)
        activity.startActivity(Intent.createChooser(intent, null))
    }
}

The Android implementation is explicitly Activity-owned. A generic Context often hides the UI lifecycle requirement. Define what suspend means: for many platform UI actions it means "the sheet was launched", not "the user completed sharing."

If the actual starts accumulating business rules, move those rules back to common code and leave only platform translation in the actual.

Prefer interfaces when tests or DI matter

Use expect/actual for simple compile-time platform APIs. Use interfaces when common code needs fakes, multiple implementations, runtime selection, or lifecycle ownership:

kotlin

interface Clipboard {
    suspend fun setText(text: String)
}

Platform modules bind Clipboard to Android/iOS implementations. Common tests use a fake.

Compose-specific guidance

When shared UI reaches a platform leaf:

Keep platform-specific composables at leaf nodes.
Pass Modifier through every expected composable that emits UI.
Reject platform types in commonMain signatures (Context, Activity, Android resource IDs, Uri, Bundle, UIViewController, NSBundle, platform permission enums, etc.).
Hide native view lifecycle inside the platform actual and use the right interop container (AndroidView, UIKitView, etc.).
Do not launch platform work directly from a composable body. Use remember, LaunchedEffect, DisposableEffect, and stable keys inside actual composables just as you would in common Compose code.
Preview/test the common plain UI composable with fake platform services where possible.

Common mistakes

Mistake	Fix
`commonMain` API exposes Android/iOS types	Replace with semantic common types
`expect` function has parameters for one platform only	Move those details into the actual
Business branching duplicated in each actual	Move business rules to common code
One huge `Platform` expect object	Split by capability: `Clipboard`, `ShareSheet`, `Haptics`
Platform UI leaks high in the tree	Push platform-specific Composable to a leaf
No fakeable boundary for common tests	Use an interface instead of direct `expect` call
Only one target compiles after the change	Compile all affected source sets before finishing

Red flags during review

Common code imports platform packages.
An actual implementation knows product state, navigation decisions, or domain rules.
A platform API name appears in a common function name.
Adding a third platform would require changing common callers.
Tests need Android/iOS runtime just to verify common business behavior.

Related (Compose / shared UI)

Stay focused on platform boundaries in this skill; wire shared UI like any other Compose target:

kotlin-control-flow — keeping common-code business branching explicit with when, guard conditions, exhaustiveness, and smart casts.
compose-state-holder-ui-split — shared plain UI composables vs state-holder wiring.
compose-side-effects — effect keys and cleanup in actual composables (LaunchedEffect, DisposableEffect, etc.).
compose-modifier-and-layout-style and compose-slot-api-pattern — reusable shared Compose APIs (modifiers, slots).