3 ms·
Right. In GraphQL you wouldn’t need to make a new endpoint for the same resource just because you’re calling it for a different purpose. It separates the API fr
by nonethewiser 4y ago
Right. In GraphQL you wouldn’t need to make a new endpoint for the same resource just because you’re calling it for a different purpose. It separates the API from how it’s used.
If you’re querying different fields on the same resource 50 different times it’s rather absurd to keep making new endpoints.
- timr 4y ago> GraphQL you wouldn’t need to make a new endpoint for the same resource just because you’re calling it for a different purpose. Yes, but I'm saying that's a feature, not a bug. It's not absurd to make new endpoints. Each endpoint is a different need. You can optimize them independently...or not. > If you’re querying different fields on the same resource 50 different times it’s rather absurd to keep making new endpoints. In my career, I can count the number of times that a field has mattered in a response on one hand. Usually the problem is the joins, or the total number of queries. Point being: you don't generally write new endpoints just because the number of fields in a response is slightly different.
- satvikpendem 4y agoOr you can use GraphQL and get all of that functionality for free.
- timr 4y agoWhere "free" means "lots of developer burden", sure. Let's kill this fly with a chainsaw. It's free!
- satvikpendem 4y agoI've never experienced the problems you say you have with GraphQL, to be honest, and I've been using it for quite a while.