Skip to main content

3 posts tagged with "restapi"

View All Tags

· 2 min read
Constantine Malyshev

This is an image

Programmers are already lazy enough. Typing extra text is not their thing. Less code with more benefits!

Programmers are aesthetes. The code must be lovely. Beautiful code is inexplicable and must be experienced.

We are programmers. And have done everything we could to make the JSight language concise and beautiful. And finally, it looks like we’ve got it!

For example, see what a simple API on JSight looks like:

JSIGHT 0.3

GET /cats/{id}
200
{
"id" : 123, // {min: 0}
"name" : "Tom"
}

Any programmer, without requiring any explanation, will immediately and unmistakably understand what this API is about. Nothing superfluous! Every word, every letter has an important and precise sense.

Compare the same API on OpenAPI (Swagger):

openapi: 3.0.3
info:
title: ""
version: ""
paths:
/cats/{id}:
get:
parameters:
- name: id
in: path
required: true
schema: {}
responses:
200:
description: ""
content:
application/json:
schema:
type: object
required: [id, name]
properties:
id:
type: integer
minimum: 0
example: 123
name:
type: string
example: "Tom"

Doesn't this code seem redundant, to put it mildly?

We’re not criticizing OpenAPI. We’ve previously used it a lot and truly love it. But the world is moving forward and outdated technologies have to give way to new ones. It's time to move on to JSight, which is both concise and beautiful.

You can try out the JSight language right now: editor.jsight.io!

Learn more about JSight in a quick tutorial and in the official specification.

· 2 min read
Constantine Malyshev

This is an image

We’re starting a series of posts about the key features of the JSight language, which set it apart from all other API description languages and make describing API easier and faster.

Today, we’ll discuss the main feature, which we refer to as “Example as a schema”.

Any API description language describes data schemas in one way or another. For example, WSDL uses XSD to describe data, Blueprint API uses JSON Schema, and OpenAPI uses Schema Object.

The JSight API language uses the JSight Schema language to describe data. The JSight Schema approach, on the other hand, is fundamentally different from any other method of describing schemas. Now we'll tell you about this difference.

In 2020, Swagger interviewed over 3,000 IT specialists, asking them to name the top 5 most important things they seek in API documentation. What do you think the most popular ones were among the respondents? 70% of the respondents answered that they need EXAMPLES.

This is an image

Unlike all other languages, the JSight Schema language primarily focuses on sample data. And this is completely justified. Programmers love examples! After all, most of the time, just looking at the example is enough to figure out what the data structure is.

In the JSight Schema language, the data example is already a data schema. For example, here is the simplest schema for you:

{
"id": 123,
"name": "Tom"
}

It is obvious from this schema that the data must be an object with an “id” property of type integer and a “name” property of type string. And if you need to add additional requirements to the schema that are not obvious from the sample data, then these requirements can be placed in a small JSON in the comments to the property:

{
"id": 123, // {min: 1}
"name": "Tom"
}

In the given diagram, it is added that the value of the “id" property must be greater than or equal to one.

For comparison, a similar schema in the OpenAPI language will look like this:

 type: object
required: [id, name]
properties:
id:
type: integer
minimum: 1
example: 123
name:
type: string
example: "Tom"

Do you notice any differences?

On JSight, the schema is simpler, shorter and more appealing to the eye.

You can learn more about JSight Schema in our tutorial and in language specification.

· 2 min read
Constantine Malyshev

This is an image

I've recently heard from a number of people that gRPC is on the rise, and that it may eventually supplant the standard REST API. Such a thesis astounded me greatly. I'd like to offer some thoughts on this.

First, let's talk about the market's current state. We analysed several different sources – various studies in well-known periodicals, search query statistics, and the number of likes and mentions on various portals – and then came up with some preliminary findings. Approximately 80% of the total number of API worldwide were created using HTTP REST technology. We estimate that gRPC technology is used in less than 1% of all API worldwide. So it’s still far too early to talk seriously about a global trend in changing technology.

On the other hand, we can discuss the rise in popularity. Indeed, interest in gRPC technology is increasing rapidly, at least three times faster than in the previous two years. However, interest in HTTP REST is also growing, albeit at a slower rate (about 30 percent per year). As a result, it’s incorrect to assert that gRPC is "taking away" a portion of the market from REST. It’s more accurate to say that the API market in general is expanding rapidly in all directions.

And finally. In principle, it’s incorrect to consider gRPC and HTTP REST as competitors. These are quite different technologies that address different issues. We'll compare the two in more detail in future posts. Let us now go on to the most significant point. HTTP REST is the cheapest technology. The REST entry threshold is set to the bare minimum. Employees are just required to have a basic level of qualification. Working with REST is extremely convenient. The dangers are minor. REST's only significant disadvantage is its slow data rate. gRPC – technology is more expensive to develop and maintain. The entry threshold is significantly higher than in REST, as are the employee qualification requirements. The main advantage is the high speed of data exchange.

As a result, if the API does not require high performance, people prefer cheap and simple REST. If the API has stringent requirements, it makes sense to fork out on the gRPC. Obviously, the former will always be several times more than the latter.