4 ms·

It incurs huge costs though: 1. Costs of API maintenance - rigid APIs need constant change. To mitigate that people create APIs like GraphQL which is a reimple

• vineyardmike 2y ago
  > Costs of API maintenance - rigid APIs need constant change. Rigidity is the point... If you have a "CRUD a Foo" set of APIs, and how you create/read a "foo" is defined in that API. Sometimes change is necessary, sometimes the API contract changes, but sometimes just the internal implementation changes (eg new or refactored tables/columns). The rigidity of the API ensures that every downstream user of a foo creates/reads in the exact same way. It centralizes permissions, overrides (eg. a/b testing), rate limiting, transactions, etc. to be homogeneous for everyone. If you want to create/read a foo via database queries alone, and the database changes or the business logic changes, then the same issue occurs where all clients need to change, but now it needs to be coordinated everywhere, and you can't benefit from a centralized change hiding implementation details. Many people prefer to keep all the logic around enforcing consistency and object lifecycle (application behavior) in the application layer. This allows a single codebase to manage it, and it can be uniformly guarded with tests. Exposing the database itself is really just an example of a leaking implementation details. > To mitigate that people create APIs like GraphQL If you need raw flexible queries, then this is probably the wrong sort of solution. Ideally, the developer of a service already knows what queries will be made, and clients don't typically need detailed custom queries. Analytics (typically read-only) should already occur in an offline or read-replica version of the database to not impact production traffic. > (micro)systems owning databases need data synchronisation and duplication. What do you mean? Foo service exposes "CRUD-Foo" apis and is the only service that calls the Foo-storing database. If Foo service is horizontally scaled, then it's all the same code, and can safely call foo-db in parallel. If the database needs horizontal scaling, you can just use whatever primitives exist for the database you picked, and foo-service will call it as expected, and the transaction governs the lifecycle of the records. > ...all efforts to decouple services via APIs are moot. To be clear, different services wouldn't operate on their own duplicated version of the same shared data, in their own database. They'd call a defined API to get that data from another service. The whole point of this is to allow each service to define the interface for their data.
  • mkleczek 2y ago
    > Exposing the database itself is really just an example of a leaking implementation details. This is a mistake that a lot of people make - treating database as an implementation detail. Relational model and relational calculus/algebra were invented for _sharing_ data (not storing). The relational model _is_ the interface. Access to data is abstracted away - swapping storage layer or introducing different indexes or even using foreign data wrappers is transparent to applications. Security and access policies are defined not against API operations but against _data_ - because it is data that you want to protect regardless of what API is used to access it. > To be clear, different services wouldn't operate on their own duplicated version of the same shared data, in their own database. They'd call a defined API to get that data from another service. You mean synchronous calls? This actually leads to what industry calls "distributed spaghetti" and is the worst of both worlds. > The whole point of this is to allow each service to define the interface for their data. The point is that well defined relational database schema and SQL _is_ a very good interface for data. Wrapping it in JSON over HTTP is a step backwards.