4 ms·

I could not agree more. This is the way I design things and it makes life so much easier. It solves so many problems by just building a separate API for each ap

by issa 5y ago

I could not agree more. This is the way I design things and it makes life so much easier. It solves so many problems by just building a separate API for each app. They can all use and re-use the same underlying functions and logic, but each API serves the data in the most convenient way for whatever page is being rendered. I would never go back.

lucasyvas 5y ago
Don't bother looking back. I would encourage you to consider GraphQL depending on your use case, but for data-heavy apps the generic API approach is the worst approach.
- issa 5y ago
  I am not very familiar with GraphQL, but on first look it seems more suited to a public API. For an internal app, when we know EXACTLY what data is needed for each page, this seems like wasted effort. Any thing in particular you suggest checking out?
  - et1337 5y ago
    GraphQL was designed for mobile apps and UIs, and I think it’s perfectly suited. We started to build our front end using our public REST API and the experience was so harrowing that we started looking for something else. The big win with GraphQL comes from the client-side tooling. You can have a React page with 100 components that each request their own data, and have it automatically batched up into a single request. Your page no longer has to predict what data the components will need. When a junior front end dev tries to reuse a component from page A in page B, the page B query will automatically be updated to fetch the data required for that component.
  - stepbeek 5y ago
    I’ve been using GraphQL seriously for a year on a client project now (an inherited decision). I can totally see why it would be useful for a public API or an internal API in a very large engineering org. For everything else it is needless complexity and an additional failure mode. The tooling and operational aspects aren’t as mature as a conventional HTTP API (yet?) so I’ve found it to be a higher cost for limited gain.
    - OJFord 5y ago
      Getting errors packaged as status 200 graphql responses (hey technically graphql worked fine, here's the result!) really bugs me. I wish we could standardise on something that feels more 'native', have RESTful (the tangent w.r.t. Fielding, as it's actually practiced) JSON responses , JSONSchema or OpenAPI even, as popular widely implemented IETF RFCs. Or the same with GQL, but with corresponding changes to HTTP to make it make more sense. Have a response be a type consisting of nullable success data and error data perhaps, or more layered status codes as rigid as they are but allowing what GQL wants to express by 'here is a successful response that contains errors'.
      - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
        How else would you handle error codes without reducing efficiency by sending extra requests? One of the benefits of graphql is that you can query many different things in a single request, so some parts of your query could have errors without the whole thing resulting in an error.
        OJFord 5y ago
        There's nothing special about the enum status code and binary (header described) response data of today. GQL has little choice, it can either call the whole thing an HTTP error, or, to be honest it probably does the right thing, it can call it a success and describe the error in the response data. In an hierarchical model of your choice, that's genuinely an HTTP-level success. In the sort of respecifying I'm describing, you could expand status codes to describe 'mixed' results, or 'upstream error's, or whatever. I don't really have great suggestions ready because my only point is that I think the status quo is bad.
  - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
    > For an internal app, when we know EXACTLY what data is needed for each page I think that's only true for relatively small internal apps. I work on an internal app with a few hundred thousand lines of JS, and there are way too many different permutations of different types of pages to write an API catered to each use case. GraphQL has been fantastic.

by issa 5y ago

lucasyvas 5y ago

Don't bother looking back. I would encourage you to consider GraphQL depending on your use case, but for data-heavy apps the generic API approach is the worst approach.

issa 5y ago
I am not very familiar with GraphQL, but on first look it seems more suited to a public API. For an internal app, when we know EXACTLY what data is needed for each page, this seems like wasted effort. Any thing in particular you suggest checking out?
- et1337 5y ago
  GraphQL was designed for mobile apps and UIs, and I think it’s perfectly suited. We started to build our front end using our public REST API and the experience was so harrowing that we started looking for something else. The big win with GraphQL comes from the client-side tooling. You can have a React page with 100 components that each request their own data, and have it automatically batched up into a single request. Your page no longer has to predict what data the components will need. When a junior front end dev tries to reuse a component from page A in page B, the page B query will automatically be updated to fetch the data required for that component.
- stepbeek 5y ago
  I’ve been using GraphQL seriously for a year on a client project now (an inherited decision). I can totally see why it would be useful for a public API or an internal API in a very large engineering org. For everything else it is needless complexity and an additional failure mode. The tooling and operational aspects aren’t as mature as a conventional HTTP API (yet?) so I’ve found it to be a higher cost for limited gain.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    Getting errors packaged as status 200 graphql responses (hey technically graphql worked fine, here's the result!) really bugs me. I wish we could standardise on something that feels more 'native', have RESTful (the tangent w.r.t. Fielding, as it's actually practiced) JSON responses , JSONSchema or OpenAPI even, as popular widely implemented IETF RFCs. Or the same with GQL, but with corresponding changes to HTTP to make it make more sense. Have a response be a type consisting of nullable success data and error data perhaps, or more layered status codes as rigid as they are but allowing what GQL wants to express by 'here is a successful response that contains errors'.
    - TheCoelacanth 5y ago
      How else would you handle error codes without reducing efficiency by sending extra requests? One of the benefits of graphql is that you can query many different things in a single request, so some parts of your query could have errors without the whole thing resulting in an error.
      - OJFord 5y ago
        There's nothing special about the enum status code and binary (header described) response data of today. GQL has little choice, it can either call the whole thing an HTTP error, or, to be honest it probably does the right thing, it can call it a success and describe the error in the response data. In an hierarchical model of your choice, that's genuinely an HTTP-level success. In the sort of respecifying I'm describing, you could expand status codes to describe 'mixed' results, or 'upstream error's, or whatever. I don't really have great suggestions ready because my only point is that I think the status quo is bad.
- TheCoelacanth 5y ago
  > For an internal app, when we know EXACTLY what data is needed for each page I think that's only true for relatively small internal apps. I work on an internal app with a few hundred thousand lines of JS, and there are way too many different permutations of different types of pages to write an API catered to each use case. GraphQL has been fantastic.