Title: Navigating API Gateway Pricing Strategies: Should You Consolidate Endpoints or Keep Them Focused?
In the world of API architecture, choosing the right gateway solution can be challenging, especially when different vendors present varying pricing models. One common concern is the “action-based” pricing approach, where costs are determined by the number of endpoints or actions exposed. If you’re evaluating API gateways and facing similar dilemmas, here’s a thoughtful perspective on whether consolidating multiple specific actions into fewer, more flexible endpoints makes sense.
Understanding the Context
Many backend systems employ controllers managing multiple actions—for instance, a WidgetsController handling methods like CreateWidget, GetWidgets, UpdateWidget, and DeleteWidget. Some development teams further define specialized actions tailored to particular use cases, such as GetWidgetsForUseCase1 and GetWidgetsForUseCase2. These specific endpoints often help in maintaining clarity and separating concerns, especially when the logic varies significantly per use case.
However, to promote DRY principles, shared business logic typically resides at a service layer, with the controller actions primarily serving as entry points. The question arises: should these multiple narrowly focused endpoints be merged into a single, more versatile endpoint that handles different behaviors based on flags or parameters?
Vendor Concerns and Architectural Considerations
Some API Gateway vendors advocate for consolidating endpoints, arguing that fewer, more flexible URLs simplify management and reduce costs. They often provide tooling to handle complex internal logic based on request parameters, encouraging a shift away from strictly defined, narrowly scoped endpoints.
This approach, while seemingly efficient, may introduce drawbacks. It’s essential to consider whether this strategy is driven by genuine architectural benefits or mostly serves the vendor’s pricing interests, potentially leading to vendor lock-in. Overloading a single endpoint with varied logic can also impact readability, debugging, and maintainability, particularly when the responses differ significantly between use cases.
Future Expansion and Response Complexity
An additional layer of complexity is the potential need to support new actions in the future that return substantially different response objects based on request parameters. Such scenarios challenge the decision: Should these be handled by a single, flexible endpoint or through multiple dedicated ones? The more diverse the behaviors and responses, the more it might make sense to keep endpoints narrowly focused to ensure clarity and simplicity.
Final Thoughts: To Consolidate or Not?
From an architectural standpoint, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. Consolidating multiple specific actions into a single, more complex endpoint can reduce the
