4 ms·

This is the strange thing about GraphQL, it shifts the work to someone else so you'll end up with people teams that benefit and teams that don't. You also need

• enriquec 6y ago
  What you just described is exactly what a Graph implementation like Apollo is.
• Cederfjard 6y ago
  Not necessarily on the client side, but it’s pretty common to have a GraphQL layer in between client and one or more REST (or other) APIs that does that.
• spion 6y ago
  There is a server-side one: https://github.com/IBM/openapi-to-graphql https://github.com/IBM/openapi-to-graphql
• floydnoel 6y ago
  Gatsby does this, and I’ve built a POC that did the same thing to try to get my workplace to adopt it. I shelved it after a demo as I didn’t love the idea of maintaining a bespoke API solution. But I’m with you, I think it’s a great idea if there were a community around it.
• adamkl 6y ago
  There’s actually nothing server specific about GraphQL. The specification makes no mention of transport layer, it’s simply a type system + query executor. You can pretty easily (if you have experience with the GraphQL reference implementation in JavaScript) create a GraphQL layer that sits inside of the browser, with a schema created by the UI team, that executes calls to REST APIs to resolve the data. You could think of it as an “ORM” for the browser, which seems cool, but I wouldn’t necessarily recommend this approach (though I have done it in the past) for two reasons: 1. The “graphql” library isn’t really optimized for size so it can add a bunch of overhead to your JavaScript bundles 2. One of the benefits of GraphQL is to combine multiple requests for related data into a single query to be sent from the browser. Yes, that makes the life of the backend developer harder as they try to optimize for performance, but it makes for less data/fewer requests over the wire to the client. If you stick GraphQL in the browser, you’ve now just moved your N+1 query across the internet. If you really want to go down that road, Apollo offers a “plugin” to their GraphQL client that allows you to call multiple REST endpoints as if they were a single GraphQL endpoint (without embedding the actual “graphql” library in the browser): https://www.apollographql.com/docs/link/links/rest/ https://www.apollographql.com/docs/link/links/rest/ A better approach for what you’re looking for would be to schema stitching (which allows you to combine multiple GraphQL endpoints together and treat them as one. You can even combine that with your own schema definitions to mix in whatever backend sources you want; e.g. your vendor + FedEx REST APIs): https://www.graphql-tools.com/docs/stitch-combining-schemas https://www.graphql-tools.com/docs/stitch-combining-schemas Or if you don’t want to do the work yourself, check out OneGraph, which uses schema-stitching to do exactly what you describe. It’s pretty cool: https://www.onegraph.com/ https://www.onegraph.com/
  • plif 6y ago
    I don't think #2 is that big of a deal if all requests happen async, which they should with a client side ORM, and if you're using http2. I think the bigger problem there is how those multiple REST calls map to your data stores. Very rarely will there be clean separation of data between endpoints, and the stateless nature of REST makes it harder to optimize each call -- meaning, there will almost certainly be redundant queries. That said, with GraphQL, your front end dev may not realize they are executing the equivalent of many REST calls, which is another problem :) I wouldn't say it's harder to optimize if you look at the application as a whole, though.
    • Aeolun 6y ago
      If you cache enough, your frontend dev can call as many things as they want and it will still be more or less instant.
      • virgilp 6y ago
        Some people, when confronted with a performance problem, think "I know, I'll use a cache." Now they have two problems. (in other words: caching is complicated, and may make your systems very hard to understand & debug)
  • busfahrer 6y ago
    > There’s actually nothing server specific about GraphQL. I just grokked this very recently when I was reading up on Gatsby and the fact that they use GraphQL. I was confused for a bit because Gatsby is SSG, until I realized they merely use GraphQL as a generic way to query any JSON data you might have laying around, similarly to how getStaticProps() is employed in NextJS
• tomgp 6y ago
  “ it shifts the work to someone else” I don’t think this is specific to graphQL. I’ve seen similar patterns with (to pick a recent example) shared front end component libraries. You make something more general at the expense of increasing complexity, if you have a team dedicated to that more complex proposition and enough consumers of that system you might well benefit at an org level. but if you don’t it’s easy to get caught up supporting that complexity at greater cost in time and effort than a less general solution would require. It’s a tricky call
• kurko 6y ago
  Although not GraphQL, that's the idea behind Ember-Data. The API is slightly different but you access data from serialized objects.