Optimizing API Gateway Strategies: Navigating Action-Based Pricing and Endpoint Design

When selecting an API gateway solution, many organizations encounter considerations beyond basic functionality—particularly around pricing models and architectural implications. A common concern centers on vendor pricing that is structured based on the number of “actions” or “endpoints,” which can influence how teams design and organize their APIs.

Case in Point: Balancing Endpoint Granularity and Cost

Suppose your backend architecture features controllers (for example, a WidgetsController) with multiple distinct actions such as CreateWidget, GetWidgets, DeleteWidget, and UpdateWidget. Additionally, some use cases might introduce specially tailored actions like GetWidgetsForUseCase1 and GetWidgetsForUseCase2. These specialized actions help clearly delineate business logic for different scenarios, maintaining clarity and separation of concerns.

Typically, the underlying logic remains DRY (Don’t Repeat Yourself) — shared routines are handled at the service layer, with the specific actions mainly serving as convenient entry points for different use cases. This approach promotes readability and maintainability, especially when dealing with complex business rules.

Vendor Recommendations and Architectural Dilemmas

Some API gateway providers suggest consolidating multiple specific actions into fewer endpoints by leveraging query parameters or flags to modify behavior. They often promote tooling at the gateway layer to handle various behaviors internally, claiming this reduces the total number of endpoints.

However, from an architectural perspective, this raises important questions:

• Does merging several narrowly scoped actions into a single, more complex endpoint offer tangible performance benefits?
• Could it lead to increased complexity in internal logic, potentially hampering maintainability?
• How does it influence overall system clarity, especially when response objects vary significantly based on small variations in request parameters?

Moreover, such consolidation might seem appealing from a cost perspective but could inadvertently increase technical complexity, making debugging, testing, and future scaling more challenging.

The Future of Endpoint Design and Response Management

In addition to current concerns, consider future plans to introduce endpoints that return substantially different data structures based on specific requests. This scenario further complicates decisions about whether to keep endpoints narrowly focused or to adopt a more flexible, consolidated approach.

Key Takeaways for API Design

When evaluating whether to combine multiple actions into fewer endpoints, consider:

• Maintainability & Readability: Focused endpoints tend to be easier to understand, test, and troubleshoot.

• Performance Implications: While fewer endpoints may reduce some overhead, complex internal logic can offset these gains.