Navigating API Gateway Strategies: Balancing Endpoint Granularity and Cost Efficiency
In the realm of API architecture, one of the ongoing debates revolves around how best to structure endpoints for clarity, maintainability, and cost management. A common consideration is whether to consolidate multiple narrowly defined actions into fewer, more versatile endpoints or to keep each endpoint focused on a specific function.
Recently, during a vendor selection process for an API gateway solution, I encountered a notable concern. The vendor proposed a pricing model based on the number of “actions” or “endpoints” invoked. This raises an important question: How does this impact architectural decisions?
Our current API design employs controller classes—such as WidgetsController—with distinct actions like CreateWidget, GetWidgets, DeleteWidget, and UpdateWidget. Additionally, for certain business scenarios, we’ve defined specialized actions, such as GetWidgetsForUseCase1 and GetWidgetsForUseCase2. These are intended to encapsulate specific logic related to different application contexts, enhancing code clarity. Rest assured, our backend maintains a DRY approach, with shared logic centralized in service layers; the use-case-specific actions mainly serve as clear entry points for particular workflows.
The vendor suggests that we could reduce the number of endpoints by introducing flags or parameters to modify behavior within a single route, leveraging their tooling to manage internal logic. While this might seem efficient, it raises concerns about code complexity, readability, and potential lock-in with a specific vendor’s platform.
Adding to this, our team is considering future expansions involving new actions that might return vastly different response structures depending on request parameters. This consideration prompts further debate: Should we pack multiple behaviors into single endpoints, or keep each action narrowly scoped?
Key Question:
Is there a tangible benefit—be it architectural clarity, performance optimization, or maintainability—to consolidating multiple specialized actions into a single, flexible endpoint? Or does maintaining focused, dedicated endpoints generally lead to better long-term code health, despite potentially increased complexity or a greater number of routes?
Seeking Perspectives:
If you’ve faced similar decisions—especially with pricing models that charge per action or endpoint—or have experience designing large-scale APIs with numerous narrowly scoped functions, I’d appreciate your insights. How do you strike the right balance between endpoint granularity, system scalability, and cost considerations?
Understanding different approaches can help guide organizations through these nuanced architectural choices, ensuring they align with both technical best practices and business constraints.
