OpenAPI-Specification VS connect-es

And I'll be using the OpenAPI Pet Store spec file as an example.

I saw your sibling comment about "keeping it simple," however that is a bit counter to "generates OpenAPI specifications" since those for sure are not limited to just application/json request/response bodies

I wanted to draw your attention to "normal" POST application/x-www-form-urlencoded <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...> and its multipart/form-data friend <https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/3.1.0/vers...>

The latter is likely problematic, but the former is in wide use still, including, strangely enough, the AWS API, although some of their newer services do have an application/json protocol

I know that's a lot of words, but the tl;dr would be that if you want your extension to be application/json only, then changing the description to say "OpenAPI specifications for application/json handshakes" would help the consumer be on the same page with your goals

Since FastAPI is based on OpenAPI, at this point you can also use the automatically generated docs. There are multiple options, and two are included by default. Try them out by accessing the following URLs:

This approach requires a constant context switch and is clearly not productive. Here, the OpenAPI Specification can help; you might already have it, but is it scalable? In this article, we’ll learn how to create an OpenAPI Specification document that is readable, scalable, and follows the principle of extension without modifying the existing document.

Phil Sturgeon, who along with Ben Hutton and Henry Andrews from the JSON Schema community, helped drive the push to full JSON Schema Draft 2020-12 compliance, has written a blog post for the official OpenAPIs.org website on how to transition your OAS documents from v3.0.x to v3.1.0.

In this article, we will be learning how to document API written in Node.js using a tool called Swagger. Swagger allows you to describe the structure of your APIs so that machines can read them. The ability of APIs to describe their own structure is the root of all awesomeness in Swagger. Why is it so great? Well, by reading our API’s structure, swagger can automatically build beautiful and interactive API documentation. It can also automatically generate client libraries for your API in many languages and explore other possibilities like automated testing. Swagger does this by asking our API to return a YAML or JSON that contains a detailed description of your entire API. This file is essentially a resource listing of our API which adheres to OpenAPI Specifications.

You may encounter APIs described as RESTful that do not meet these criteria. This is often the result of bottom-up coding, where top-down design should have been used. Another thing to watch out for is the absence of a schema. There are alternatives, but OpenAPI is a common choice with good tools support. If you don't have a schema, you can create one by building a Postman collection.

The principle behind the OpenAPI Specification (OAS – the industry’s most popular API specification format) is similar. It’s supposed to act as a blueprint for describing RESTful APIs.

OpenAPI 3.1 supports webhooks. It's not widely supported yet by implementations, but it's definitely there. https://github.com/OAI/OpenAPI-Specification/blob/main/examples/v3.1/webhook-example.yaml

The Fastly API is huge. We have lots of customers who want to interact with it using their chosen programming language but our small set of manually maintained clients was not sufficient to handle the job of our ever-evolving API. We needed a way to scale up our API client support, and OpenAPI was the answer.

> However, it's important to note that browser support wasn't a primary focus in gRPC's design. This oversight necessitates an additional component, grpc-web, for browser accessibility. Furthermore, external services often have specific needs like caching and load balancing, which are not directly catered to by gRPC. Adopting gRPC for external services might require bespoke solutions to support these features.

The article should mention the Connect protocol for web-based Protobuf messaging:

https://connectrpc.com/

We can solve this with a service! Now there are many ways I could have started, but I decided to test out gRPC along the way. This was a mistake. I hoped for the best, but gRPC ended up not being a good choice for the web client. Why? you ask. The gRPC protocol works with all the bells and whistles of http when used server to server, but web clients are not as great. The Javascript client is dependent on http 2.0, and it requires a proxy like Envoy to work with a browser. What's more, I didn't love the structure of the generated web client. So through the process of working on this 'local first stack' I actually got sucked in to a big rabbit hole in making the rpc system work. I ended up going with Connect which is a tool that can create a service from a protobuf service definition, that also talks a simple http 1.1 protocol. What ultimately sold me on this solution as the best is that it also came with a very nice to use web client generation, and even plugs in to my favorite react http helper useQuery.

Our stack at Escape is written in multiple languages because each team has specific needs. We use TypeScript for its vibrant ecosystem, Python for cybersecurity research and Go for performance-sensitive tasks. To orchestrate cross-language task orchestration, we first developed a simple request-response protocol over HTTP, but it wasn't sustainable as the Escape codebase grew rapidly. We evaluated several technologies to replace our homegrown protocol, and two emerged as the most promising options: Connect and Temporal. The title gives it away, but the reason is far from obvious

protobuf messages we’ll configure (@bufbuild/connect-es)

try https://github.com/bufbuild/connect-web

As for better gRPC-web, you might want to look into connect-web https://github.com/bufbuild/connect-web

They already have! Connect (https://github.com/bufbuild/connect-web) is what you're looking for, as it's grpc-web compatible.

Ye, fwiw there is an example code size comparison here:

https://github.com/bufbuild/connect-web/blob/main/packages/c...

I'm sure someone will chime in on the implementation details, but hopefully others can give it a try with their projects!