What is the difference between GraphQL-Mesh and Apollo-Federation?
I see that mesh support federation, which is kind of confusion?
Is it just two different ways to achieve a unified schema?
Why would you pick one solution rather than the other?
GraphQL Mesh is a set of tools to build either a gateway or a sdk for a set of data sources. They can be of various types : documented REST Apis, postgres databases through Postgraphile, of course GraphQL servers, and many more.
Mesh then allows you to perform transformations to alter your end schema.
Apollo Federation is a library designed to build relationships between separate GraphQL Schemas, also called sub graphs. It is also one of the transformation strategy proposed by GraphQL Mesh.
In a sense, GraphQL Mesh is more comparable to Apollo Gateway but with way more features to customize your schema and the ability to be used as a sdk.
GraphQL-Mesh: connects to your database: detects the database schema and transform it into a GraphQL server. It is a sort of "zero code" solution. You have the database and bam!: you can query it as a graphql server.
Apollo: more difficult to summarize in one sentence it is both frontend and backend. It is not zero code solution: it is a fullstack framework that helps you write the code that will serve a proper GraphQL communication
on frontend side, it helps you write the graphql queries in your javascript code, (integrates well with React.js but can be used for other frontend libraries as well) it does also caching (so that the frontend does not ask the server again if the data is in his cache)
on backend side: you can declare a graphql schema and write the code for your resolvers (the resolvers are the function that are called when your backend receives a graphql query: they must return the expected data). Apollo takes care of listening for the queries, parsing them and call the proper resolver for every sub part of the query.
Related
There are a lot of answers on how to convert ODataQuery into an Expression or into a Lambda, but what I need is quite the opposite, how to get from a Linq Expression the OData query string.
Basically what I want is to transcend the query to another service. For example, having 2 services, where your first service is not persisting anything and your second service is the one that will return the data from a database. Service1 sends the same odata request to Service2 and it can add more parameters to the original odata request to Service2
What I would like:
public IActionResult GetWeatherForecast([FromServices] IWeatherForcastService weatherForcastService)
{
//IQueryable here
var summaries = weatherForcastService.GetSummariesIQ();
var url = OdataMagicHelper.ConvertToUri(summaries);
var data = RestClient2.Get(url);
return data;
}
OP Clarified the request: generate OData query URLs from within the API itself.
Usually, the queries are so specific or simple, that it's not really necessary to try and generate OData urls from within the service, the whole point of the service configuration is to publish how the client could call anything, so it's a little bit redundant or counter-intuitive to return complex resource query URLs from within the service itself.
We can use Simple.OData.Client to build OData urls:
If the URL that we want to generate is:
{service2}/api/v1/weather_forecast?$select=Description
Then you could use Simple.OData.Client:
string service2Url = "http://localhost:11111/api/v1/";
var client = new ODataClient(service2Url);
var url = await client.For("weather_forecast")
.Select("Description")
.GetCommandTextAsync();
Background, for client-side solutions
If your OData service is a client for another OData Service, then this advice is still relevant
For full linq support you should be using OData Connected Services or Simple.OData.Client. You could roll your own, or use other derivatives of these two but why go to all that effort to re-create another wheel.
One of the main drivers for a OData Standard Compliant API is that the meta data is published in a standard format that clients can inspect and can generate consistent code and or dynamic queries to interact with the service.
How to choose:
Simple.OData.Client provides a lightweight framework for dynamically querying and submitting data to OData APIs. If you already have classes that model the structure of the API then you can use typed linq style query syntax, if you do not have a strongly typed model but you do know the structure of the API, then you can use either the untyped or dynamic expression syntax to query the API.
If you do not need full compile-time validation of your queries or you already have the classes that represent the resources served by the API then this is a simple enough interface to use.
This library is perfect for use inside your API logic if you have need of generating complex URLs in a strongly typed style of code without trying to generate a context to manage the connectivity to the server.
NOTE: Simple.OData.Client is sometimes less practical when developing against a large API that is rapidly evolving or that does not have a strict versioned route policy. If the API changes you will need to diligently refactor your code to match and will have to rely on extensive regression testing.
OData Connected Services follows a pattern where some or all of the API is modelled in the client with strongly typed client side proxy interfaces. These are POCO classes that have the structure necessary to send to and receive data from the server.
The major benefit to this method is that the POCO structures, requests and responses are validated against the schema of the API. This effectively gives you full intellisense support for the API and allows you to explor it's structure, the generated code becomes your documentation. It also gives you compile time checking and runtime safety.
The general development workflow after the API is deployed or updated is:
Download the $metadata document
Select the Operations and Types from the API that you want to model
Generate classes to represent the selected DTO Types as defined in the document, so all the inputs and outputs.
Now you can start using the code.
In VS 2022/19/17 the Connected Services interface provides a simple wizard for establishing the initial connection and for updating (or re-generating) when you need to.
The OData Connected Service or other client side proxy generation pattern suits projects under these criteria:
The API definition is relatively stable
The API definition is in a state of flux
You consume many endpoints
You don't want to manually code the types to serialize or deserialze payloads
Full disclosure, I prefer the connected service approach, but I have my own generation scripts. However if you are trying to generate OData query urls from inside your API, its not really an option, it creates a messy recursive dependency... just don't go there.
Connected services is the low-(manual)-code and lazy approach that is perfect for a stable API, generate once and never do it again. But the Connected Service architecture is perfect for a rapidly changing API because it will manage the minute changes to the classes for you, you just need to update your client side proxy classes more frequently.
I have a microservice application with a few services. I'm planning to implement GraphQL for the application.
An approach I have in mind is to implement a layer of APIs in each of the services first. Then, the GraphQL resolvers would make requests to the services' API endpoints and return them. This method seems neat to me because I will only have one GraphQL endpoint for my frontend to work.
At the same time, however, I'm not sure if this is a good idea at all. Instead of querying against the database directly in my resolvers, I'm actually making extra HTTP requests in my resolvers and creating overheads through network transfers. I'm guessing this would impact the overall performance with the extra layer of API calls.
One of the benefits of GraphQL is to prevent over fetching. With that extra layer of API calls in the resolvers, I'm effectively already fetching all the fields in the response of the API. Does this sound like another problem with the approach I have described?
When implementing GraphQL in a microservice application, should I have a layer of API for all the services and then have GraphQL resolvers fetching from them, or should I aim to query against the services' database directly in the GraphQL resolvers?
This sounds like a pretty normal way of doing things. Over-fetching (e.g all the fields on an entity) at the GraphQL <-> Platform boundary is arguably beneficial because you can relatively easily add entity-level caching that's close enough to the source of truth that you can also handle cache invalidation.
Whilst those additional requests do add overhead, you can take advantage of various techniques to reduce it (keep-alive, connection pooling, http2 multiplexing, etc). Ultimately, what you have is a pattern that'll be forced on you anyway once you hit a certain scale.
I'm currently writing a service in Go where I need to deal with multiple tenants. I have settled on using the one database, shared-tables approach using a 'tenant_id' decriminator for tenant separation.
The service is structured like this:
gRPC server -> gRPC Handlers -
\_ Managers (SQL)
/
HTTP/JSON server -> Handlers -
Two servers, one gRPC (administration) and one HTTP/JSON (public API), each running in their own go-routine and with their own respective handlers that can make use of the functionality of the different managers. The managers (lets call one 'inventory-manager'), all lives in different root-level packages. These are as far as I understand it my domain entities.
In this regard I have some questions:
I cannot find any ORM for Go that supports multiple tenants out there. Is writing my own on top of perhaps the sqlx package a valid option?
Other services in the future will require multi-tenant support too, so I guess I would have to create some library/package anyway.
Today, I resolve the tenants by using a ResolveTenantBySubdomain middleware for the public API server. I then place the resolved tenant id in a context value that is sent with the call to the manager. Inside the different methods in the manager, I get the tenant id from the context value. This is then used with every SQL query/exec calls or returns a error if missing or invalid tenant id. Should I even use context for this purpose?
Resolving the tenant on the gRPC server, I believe I have to use the UnaryInterceptor function for middleware handling. Since the gRPC
API interface will only be accessed by other backend services, i guess resolving by subdomain is unneccessary here. But how should I embed the tenant id? In the header?
Really hope I'm asking the right questions.
Regards, Karl.
I cannot find any ORM for Go that supports multiple tenants out there. Is writing my own on top of perhaps the sqlx package a valid option?
ORMs in Go are a controversial topic! Some Go users love them, others hate them and prefer to write SQL manually. This is a matter of personal preference. Asking for specific library recommendations is off-topic here, and in any event, I don't know of any multi-tenant ORM libraries – but there's nothing to prevent you using a wrapper of sqlx (I work daily on a system which does exactly this).
Other services in the future will require multi-tenant support too, so I guess I would have to create some library/package anyway.
It would make sense to abstract this behavior from those internal services in a way which suits your programming and interface schemas, but there's no further details here to answer more concretely.
Today, I resolve the tenants by using a ResolveTenantBySubdomain middleware for the public API server. I then place the resolved tenant id in a context value that is sent with the call to the manager. Inside the different methods in the manager, I get the tenant id from the context value. This is then used with every SQL query/exec calls or returns a error if missing or invalid tenant id. Should I even use context for this purpose?
context.Context is mostly about cancellation, not request propagation. While your use is acceptable according to the documentation for the WithValue function, it's widely considered a bad code smell to use the context package as currently implemented to pass values. Rather than use implicit behavior, which lacks type safety and many other properties, why not be explicit in the function signature of your downstream data layers by passing the tenant ID to the relevant function calls?
Resolving the tenant on the gRPC server, I believe I have to use the UnaryInterceptor function for middleware handling. Since the gRPC API interface will only be accessed by other backend services, i guess resolving by subdomain is unneccessary here. But how should I embed the tenant id? In the header? [sic]
The gRPC library is not opinionated about your design choice. You can use a header value (to pass the tenant ID as an "ambient" parameter to the request) or explicitly add a tenant ID parameter to each remote method invocation which requires it.
Note that passing a tenant ID between your services in this way creates external trust between them – if service A makes a request of service B and annotates it with a tenant ID, you assume service A has performed the necessary access control checks to verify a user of that tenant is indeed making the request. There is nothing in this simple model to prevent a rogue service C asking service B for information about some arbitrary tenant ID. An alternative implementation would implement a more complex trust-nobody policy whereby each service is provided with sufficient access control information to make its own policy decision as to whether a particular request scoped to a particular tenant should be fulfilled.
I'm building an Ember application with ember-cli and, as a persistence layer, an HTTP API using rails-api + Grape + ActiveModelSerializer. I am at a very basic stage but I want to setup my front-end and back-end in as much standard and clean way as possible before going on with developing further API and ember models.
I could not find a comprensive guide about serialization and deserialization made by the store but I read the documentation about DS.ActiveModelSerializer and DS.ActiveModelAdapter (which says the same things!) along with their parent classes.
What are the exact roles of adapter and serializer and how are they related?
Considering the tools I am using do I need to implement both of them?
Both Grape/ActiveModelSerializer and EmberData offer customization. As my back-end and front-end are for each other and not for anything else which side is it better to customize?
Hmmm...which side is better is subjective, so this is sort of my thought process:
Generally speaking, one would want an API that is able to "talk to anything" in case a device client is required or in case the API gets to be consumed by other parties in the future, so that would suggest that you'd config your Ember App to talk to your backend. But again, I think this is a subjective question/answer 'cause no one but you and your team can tell what's good for a given scenario you are or might be experiencing while the app gets created.
I think the guides explain the Adapter and Serializer role/usage and customization pretty decently these days.
As for implementing them, it may be necessary to create an adapter for your application to define a global namespace if you have one (if your controllers are behind another area like localhost:3000/api/products, then set namespace: 'api' otherwise this is not necessary), or similarly the host if you're using cors, and if you're doing with cli you might want to set the security policy in the environment to allow connections to other domains for cors and stuff like that. This can be done per model as well. But again, all of this is subjective as it depends on what you want/need to achieve.
Apologies in advance, this is a long question.
(TL;DR : Does anyone have any advice on using the EF with dynamic fields exposed using WCF Data Services/OData)
I am having some conceptual problems with WCF Data Services and EF, specifically pertaining to exposing some data as an OData service.
Basically my issue is this. The database I am exposing allows users to add fields dynamically (user-defined fields) and it uses a system whereby these fields are added directly to the underlying SQL tables. Furthermore, when you want to add data to the tables you cannot use direct SQL, you have to go via an API that they provide. (it's SAP Business One, fwiw).
I have already sucessfully built a system that exposes various objects via XML and allows a client to update or add new entities into SBO by sending in XML messages, and although it works well it's not really suited to mobile apps as it's very XML-heavy and the entry point is an old-skool asmx webservice. I want to try to jazz it up for mobile development and use Odata with WCF or Web API. (I know I could change up to a WCF service, allow handing of JSON-format requests, and start returning JSON data, but it just seems like there must be a more...native...way)
Initially I had discounted the possibility of using the EF for this because a)Dynamic fields and b)the EF could only be read-only; adding/updating entities would have to be intercepted and routed to the SBO DI Server. However, I am coming back to thinking about it and am looking for some advice (negative or otherwise!) on how to approach.
What I basically want to do is this
Expose the base tables from SBO (which don't change except when they themselves issue a patch) as EF Entities, with all the usual relationy goodness. In fact I actually will not be directly exposing the tables, I will use a set of filtered SQL Views as the data sources as this ties in with various other stuff we do to allow exposing only certain data to 3rd parties.
Expose any UDFs a particular user has added as some kind of EAV sub-collection per entity.
Intercept any requests to ADD or UPDATE an object, and route these through an existing engine I have for interfacing with the SAP Data import services.
I suppose my main question is this; suppose I implement an EF entity representing a Sales Order which comprises a Header and Details collection. To each of these classes I stick in an EAV type collection of user-defined fields and values. How much work is involved in allowing the OData filtering system to work directly on the EAV colleciton (e.g for a client to be able to ask for Service/Orders/$filter=SomeUdfField eq SomeValue where this request has to be passed down into the EAV collection of the Order header entity)
Or is it possible, for example, to generate an EF Model from some kind of metadata on the fly (I don't mind how - code generation or model building library) that would mean I could just expose each entity, dyanmic fields included, as a proper EF Model? Many thanks in advance if you read this far :)
For basic crud to an existing EF context, WCF Data Services works out great. As soon as you want to add some custom functionality, as you described above it takes a bit more work.
What you described is possible, but you would need to build out your own custom data provider to handle the dynamic generation of metadata as well as custom hooks into add/update/delete.
It may be worth looking into WCF Data Services Toolkit, it's a custom provider which slaps a repository pattern over WCF Data Services for ease of use, but it does not provide the custom metadata generation.