JsonApiDotNetCore VS json-api

Well, that might be true when implementing from the scratch, but using a standard often also means, that someone has implemented a well known library to get rid of the boilerplate and basic decisions.

I personally often use jsonapi.net[1], a C# implementation of JSONAPI. This supports OpenAPI/Swagger with swashbuckle, has a very good filtering implementation and together with Orbit.js[2] it is pretty much without having to decide many things...

[1]: https://www.jsonapi.net/

It's so powerful that it even allows you to establish relationships between operations within a single request, using something called local IDs. Work is progressing quickly on the atomic-operations branch. Check it out on Github if you want to follow along.

In our previous post we setup a basic JSON:API compliant API with the 4.0 release of the JsonApiDotNetCore framework. You can find the code we wrote under the part-1 branch on Github.

Why reinvent the wheel poorly when you have a hundred of solutions like https://jsonapi.org/?

For context, the subject-predicate-object pattern is known as a semantic triple or Resource Description Framework (RDF) triple:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_triple

They're useful for storing social network graph data, for example, and can be expressed using standards like Open Graph and JSONAPI:

https://ogp.me

https://jsonapi.org

I've stored RDF triples in database tables and experimented with query concepts from neo4j:

https://neo4j.com/docs/getting-started/data-modeling/tutoria...

These are straightforward to translate to SQL but the syntax can get messy due to not always having foreign keys available and hitting limitations with polymorphic relationships. Some object-relational mapping (ORM) frameworks help with this:

https://laravel.com/docs/12.x/eloquent-relationships#polymor...

I feel that document-oriented databases like MongoDB jumped the gun a bit, and would have preferred to have had graph-oriented or key-value-oriented databases providing row/column/document oriented queries and views. Going the other way feels a bit kludgy to me:

https://www.mongodb.com/resources/basics/databases/mongodb-g...

Basically Set Theory internally with multiple query languages externally and indexed by default.

Oh and have all writes generate an event stream like Firebase does so we can easily build reactive apps.

Built on JSON API standards, the OSF API is intuitive for anyone familiar with REST conventions. Once you learn its core patterns, you can quickly expand into project creation, user collaboration, and more—without constantly referencing documentation. The official OSF API docs provide everything needed to get started.

Following established patterns reduces the learning curve for your API. Adopt conventions from JSON:API or Microsoft API Guidelines to provide consistent experiences.

I’ve used both GraphQL and REST in the past. From json:api to Relay, each approach for building APIs has its pros and cons. However, a constant challenge is choosing between code-first and schema-first approaches.

Features: REST-like CQRS HTTP-API, Faceted Search, Full-text Search Interface: OpenAPI, JSON, JSON API, JSON Schema Query Languages: SQL dialect, Cypher, Gremlin, MQL, GraphQL Ingest Protocols: OAI-PMH, S3 Ingest Encoding: XML Ingest Formats: DataCite, DublinCore, MARC, MODS Deployment: Compose, Docker-Compose, Podman-Compose, K8s (via Kompose) Components: ArcadeDB, Connect, Lowdefy License: MIT

There is a group of people who set out to standardize JSON responses into a single response style, either for returning single or multiple resources. You can take their style as a reference when designing their API to ensure uniformity of responses.

The server seems to be using the popular JSON:API standard which is a great way to build APIs. But should we really use these data structures in the frontend?

Note: You think the response data structure with the data field and the included field with mixed data types looks weird? You might not have encountered the popular JSON:API standard yet.