Optimizing API Gateway Strategies: Balancing Action-Based Pricing and API Design
In the ever-evolving landscape of API architecture, selecting the right gateway solution can significantly impact both operational costs and system maintainability. Recently, I’ve been exploring various API gateway providers, one of which raised a noteworthy concern: their pricing model hinges on the number of “actions” or “endpoints” exposed.
This has prompted a broader discussion about the best practices for designing API endpoints, especially when considering potential costs associated with multiple narrowly focused actions versus consolidating functionality into fewer, more versatile endpoints.
The Current Approach: Modular, Use-Case Specific Endpoints
In our existing architecture, we maintain controllers such as WidgetsController with standard RESTful actions like CreateWidget, GetWidgets, UpdateWidget, and DeleteWidget. Additionally, we sometimes define specialized actions tailored to specific use cases—examples include GetWidgetsForUseCase1 and GetWidgetsForUseCase2. These specialized endpoints encapsulate business logic pertinent to particular scenarios, providing clarity and separation of concerns at the controller level, though they largely rely on shared underlying services to avoid duplication.
Vendor Recommendations and Their Implications
The API provider suggests reducing the number of endpoints by merging similar actions and controlling behavior through request parameters or flags. They also promote using their gateway tooling to manage some of this logic internally. While this strategy might streamline certain operations, it also raises concerns about vendor lock-in and whether such consolidation genuinely adds architectural value or merely serves as a cost-saving measure driven by their pricing model.
Future Considerations: Increasing Complexity and Response Variability
Our internal discussions are also steering towards expanding the number of distinct actions and endpoints, particularly where responses differ significantly based on request specifics. This evolution adds layers of complexity, prompting us to reconsider whether a single, multi-behavioral endpoint might handle future needs efficiently—or whether maintaining narrowly scoped endpoints remains the clearer, more maintainable approach.
Key Question: To Consolidate or Not?
From an architectural standpoint, does merging multiple specific actions into a single, more complex endpoint deliver tangible benefits in performance or maintainability? Or are multiple focused endpoints—the kind that clearly define their purpose—generally preferable, even if they lead to a higher number of endpoints?
Seeking Insights from the Community
If you’ve faced similar challenges—whether dealing with pricing models that incentivize fewer endpoints or designing large-scale APIs with numerous specialized actions—I’d appreciate your perspective. How
