5 ms·

> That’s reasonable advice for growth stage companies aiming for huge user bases. Not really, that's the result of hard-earned lessons that pay off from day 1.

by rualca 5y ago

> That’s reasonable advice for growth stage companies aiming for huge user bases. Not really, that's the result of hard-earned lessons that pay off from day 1. Think about it: you have data in a database, and you put up an API to allow access to it. Your API needs change, and now you need to make available a resource with/without an extra attribute. You need to provide it as a new API version in parallel with the current API version you're supporting. What will you do then? Reupdate the whole db with a new migration? Put up two databases? Or are you going to tweak the DTO mapper and be done with it?

BenjieGillam 5y ago
Or use an API layer such as GraphQL that doesn’t require versioning for such a minor change since additive changes (or deprecations) to the API do not affect existing queries - each query states exactly what it needs.
- rualca 5y ago
  > Or use an API layer such as GraphQL (...) But that already qualifies as the boilerplate code that was supposedly the root problem, isn't it? But now instead of a simple mapper you've bolted on another complex system. So exactly how does JSON in the db solve any of the problems that were presented? Other than adding two buzzwords, what were the improvements?
- munk-a 5y ago
  Backwards incompatible changes will eventually be required by the business - at least once that business is oriented such that technical concerns do not overrule all other concerns.
danielheath 5y ago
I use a database that was designed by someone who understands one sometimes wants to run a migration. It’s not hard to add new fields. Perhaps my experience is unusual having worked on a distributed database for several years but this stuff just seems like table stakes.
- rualca 5y ago
  > I use a database that was designed by someone who understands one sometimes wants to run a migration. It’s not hard to add new fields. We're not talking about adding attributes to a database. We're talking about one of the most basic cases in API design: changing a interface and serving two or more versions. If the mapping step between getting data from the db and outputting it in a response is expected to be eliminated by getting the DB to dump JSON, how is this issue solved? And how exactly is a full blown db migration preferable to mapping and serializing a DTO?
  - taffer 5y ago
    The way you are supposed to use Postgrest or Postgraphile is to provide only views and stored procedures as the API. These views and stored procedures are layered over your data schema and should be the only way to query or change the data. This way you can make API changes without requiring migrations. The point is that instead of having queries that return tables that you then map to DTOs for serialization, you have queries that return JSON directly. Another way to accomplish the same thing, if you don't want views or stored procedures, is to use a library like jOOQ that does much the same thing in your Java middleware.
ric2b 5y ago
You can use views for that usecase, and you can have multiple available at once.

by rualca 5y ago

BenjieGillam 5y ago

Or use an API layer such as GraphQL that doesn’t require versioning for such a minor change since additive changes (or deprecations) to the API do not affect existing queries - each query states exactly what it needs.

rualca 5y ago
> Or use an API layer such as GraphQL (...) But that already qualifies as the boilerplate code that was supposedly the root problem, isn't it? But now instead of a simple mapper you've bolted on another complex system. So exactly how does JSON in the db solve any of the problems that were presented? Other than adding two buzzwords, what were the improvements?
munk-a 5y ago
Backwards incompatible changes will eventually be required by the business - at least once that business is oriented such that technical concerns do not overrule all other concerns.

danielheath 5y ago

I use a database that was designed by someone who understands one sometimes wants to run a migration. It’s not hard to add new fields. Perhaps my experience is unusual having worked on a distributed database for several years but this stuff just seems like table stakes.

rualca 5y ago
> I use a database that was designed by someone who understands one sometimes wants to run a migration. It’s not hard to add new fields. We're not talking about adding attributes to a database. We're talking about one of the most basic cases in API design: changing a interface and serving two or more versions. If the mapping step between getting data from the db and outputting it in a response is expected to be eliminated by getting the DB to dump JSON, how is this issue solved? And how exactly is a full blown db migration preferable to mapping and serializing a DTO?
- taffer 5y ago
  The way you are supposed to use Postgrest or Postgraphile is to provide only views and stored procedures as the API. These views and stored procedures are layered over your data schema and should be the only way to query or change the data. This way you can make API changes without requiring migrations. The point is that instead of having queries that return tables that you then map to DTOs for serialization, you have queries that return JSON directly. Another way to accomplish the same thing, if you don't want views or stored procedures, is to use a library like jOOQ that does much the same thing in your Java middleware.

ric2b 5y ago

You can use views for that usecase, and you can have multiple available at once.