Optimizing API Gateway Strategy: Navigating Action-Based Pricing and Architectural Trade-offs

As organizations scale their API infrastructures, choosing the right gateway solution becomes increasingly crucial. Recently, I’ve been exploring various API gateway providers, and a notable concern has emerged around their pricing models—particularly those that charge based on the number of distinct “actions” or “endpoints.”

In many modern backend architectures, it’s common to see multiple controller actions such as CreateWidget, GetWidgets, UpdateWidget, and DeleteWidget. Some teams also define specialized actions tailored to specific use cases—like GetWidgetsForUseCase1 and GetWidgetsForUseCase2. These specialized endpoints often improve clarity and separation of concerns, making the codebase more maintainable.

However, some API gateway providers advocate for a different approach: reducing the number of endpoints by consolidating multiple use cases into a single, more flexible endpoint. This typically involves leveraging query parameters or flags within the request to control behavior, and relying on the gateway layer’s tooling to manage request routing and logic.

While this approach might seem appealing from a management perspective, it prompts important questions about architectural design and cost implications. Specifically:

• Does consolidating multiple specialized actions into fewer, more complex endpoints provide significant benefits in terms of performance or maintainability?
• Or does this strategy introduce unnecessary complexity, making the backend harder to understand and debug?
• How does this impact scalability, especially when different requests require vastly different responses or processing logic?
• And importantly, from a cost standpoint, is the potential savings in endpoint count worth the possible loss in clarity and control?

The core dilemma revolves around balancing the desire for streamlined, cost-efficient API management with the principles of clear and maintainable system architecture. While reducing the number of endpoints might seem advantageous, it can also lead to more intricate internal logic, which might offset the intended benefits.

From experience and industry discussions, the consensus often leans toward maintaining focused, narrowly scoped endpoints whenever possible. This approach enhances readability, simplifies debugging, and aligns well with RESTful principles. However, in scenarios where API call costs or gateway charges significantly depend on the number of endpoints, a nuanced evaluation is necessary.

In conclusion, organizations should carefully assess their specific needs, weighing the architectural clarity against cost considerations. If feasible, adopting a hybrid approach—keeping most endpoints focused but strategically consolidating only where it offers clear benefits—might be the optimal path forward.

Has anyone faced similar challenges