Vzorčni rezultat
Ustvarjeno 27 oktober 2026
Pros
| Benefit | Severity / Impact | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| Clients can request exactly the fields they need, reducing over-fetching and endpoint chaining | High | High, especially with web and mobile clients that need different data shapes |
| A strongly typed schema creates a shared contract and improves API discoverability | High | High |
| Frontend teams can iterate without waiting for new purpose-built REST endpoints | High | Medium–High |
| A single query can aggregate data from multiple backend services | High | Medium; depends on architecture and resolver design |
| Schema introspection and tooling improve documentation, code generation, and developer experience | Medium | High |
| Deprecating individual fields can enable more gradual API evolution than versioned REST endpoints | Medium | High if schema governance is enforced |
| Subscriptions can provide a unified model for real-time features | Medium | Low–Medium; implementation and operations remain complex |
Cons
| Risk / Cost | Severity | Likelihood |
|---|---|---|
| Resolver design can introduce N+1 queries, duplicated work, and unpredictable latency | High | High without batching, caching, and query planning |
| Caching is more complex than REST’s URL- and HTTP-based model | High | High |
| Arbitrary query depth or complexity can enable expensive requests and denial-of-service scenarios | High | Medium–High unless limits, persisted queries, and cost controls are added |
| Authorization becomes field- and resolver-level rather than primarily endpoint-level | High | High |
| Monitoring and debugging require GraphQL-aware tracing; one endpoint can hide many distinct operations | High | High |
| Migration creates a period where REST and GraphQL must coexist | Medium–High | High |
| Teams must learn schema design, resolver patterns, federation choices, and GraphQL-specific security | Medium | High |
| File uploads, streaming, binary responses, and simple resource operations may fit REST bett |