juniper VS rweb

juniper

GraphQL is also an option. https://github.com/graphql-rust/juniper

Juniper has plenty of popularity, so I guess it's Rust + graph DB that doesn't get much love then... :/

rusty-gql would not be able to release without async-graphql and juniper.

I'm looking for graphql server that can do queries and mutations over websocket, like subscriptions-transport-ws. Juniper and async-graphql both looks promising and async-graphql at least uses wording Subscriptions (WebSocket transport) in features but i couldn't find much more or any examples about that from the docs or repo.

We also don’t use Node anymore. We found Node in general to be incredibly slow, not to mention single threaded. Admittedly, we did use Node (Apollo) though up until about two years ago. Now, depending on use-case, we will use Go (https://github.com/99designs/gqlgen) or Rust (https://github.com/graphql-rust/juniper). Both outperform a Node gateway but significant margins.

(example from the docs async-graphql https://async-graphql.github.io/async-graphql/en/subscription.html, juniper: https://github.com/graphql-rust/juniper/blob/master/docs/book/content/advanced/subscriptions.md)

rweb is pretty simple. it's based on warp, but with rocket-like #[get("/product/{id}")] which is like Flask's @app.route("/product/").

I wrote a PR this weekend to give FastAPI like UX to rweb! https://github.com/kdy1/rweb/pull/56

This crate has an implementation for the Handler trait which I used to model my own Handler trait for an actix-web Service. Using my own struct which implemented that trait suddenly made the "this is not Send" error messages simple enough to decipher. I was able to get the thing to actually compile, but it required using a few unwrap()s on errors which were not Send. I could probably go back and figure out how to wrap or map those errors to something simpler to make my implementation less fragile, but I was already annoyed enough at this implementation that I was headed toward rweb anyway.

All of that is to say rweb is a possible solution, but not a likely one. The product seems great, and if the code functions as well as the brief examples indicate, this is the best option from a code perspective (oops, spoilers!). Given my concerns about the community, I would have to be comfortable forking and maintaining my own version of this framework in the event that I need changes and can't wait months for a PR to be reviewed. Even if that's not the case, I'll certainly have to write much more complete documentation for my teammates to be able to use this project effectively. I'm not mortally opposed to any of that, but I'd rather avoid it if I can.