I remember my engineer being such a hardass on using v2 of our API and when I went to implement a feature, v2 didn’t even have ANY of the endpoints I needed
If the APIs are meant for public consumption, requiring feature parity makes a lot of sense. But when it’s for internal use by your own developers, waiting means you are making a bunch of new API endpoints no one will ever use. People will write more and more code using the older endpoints and those endpoints will start getting changes that your new ones will need ported over.
I think if you are going to force people to use new endpoints, you’ll need them to either write the endpoints themselves or have a team member who can write it for them and account for this while planning. If getting a new endpoint requires putting in a JIRA ticket with a separate backend team, 4 planning meetings, and a month wait, people are just going to stick with what currently exists.
This is how we have 3 different APIs that sometimes do the same thing, but most times are incomplete when compared to the original v1, who in the meantime wasn’t properly maintained because we were “migrating” and now you have to use bits and pieces of the 3 of them to do anything.
It’s a nightmare. Can’t wait for the next genius to come along and start a v4, that will never be completed and will only re-implement parts of the old APIs while implementing all the new features
I suspect that starting your own version of the API is the Software Designer / Software Architect version of Programmers’ “I know best so I’m going to do my part of the code my way which is different from everybody else’s”.
Mind you, at the very least good Software Architects should know best, but sometimes people get the title without having the chops for it.
It was basically the same thing. In the code base, there was only v3 and v4. I never bothered to check what happened to v1 and v2, but I suspect they were used in an older, archived code base.
I remember my engineer being such a hardass on using v2 of our API and when I went to implement a feature, v2 didn’t even have ANY of the endpoints I needed
I don’t get why anyone would publish v2 when it not really on feature-parity. Do companies really start releasing v2 endpoints slowly?
it’s called the strangler pattern, where the new version is layered on top of the old and gradually replaces it.
it usually doesn’t work.
If the APIs are meant for public consumption, requiring feature parity makes a lot of sense. But when it’s for internal use by your own developers, waiting means you are making a bunch of new API endpoints no one will ever use. People will write more and more code using the older endpoints and those endpoints will start getting changes that your new ones will need ported over.
I think if you are going to force people to use new endpoints, you’ll need them to either write the endpoints themselves or have a team member who can write it for them and account for this while planning. If getting a new endpoint requires putting in a JIRA ticket with a separate backend team, 4 planning meetings, and a month wait, people are just going to stick with what currently exists.
This is how we have 3 different APIs that sometimes do the same thing, but most times are incomplete when compared to the original v1, who in the meantime wasn’t properly maintained because we were “migrating” and now you have to use bits and pieces of the 3 of them to do anything.
It’s a nightmare. Can’t wait for the next genius to come along and start a v4, that will never be completed and will only re-implement parts of the old APIs while implementing all the new features
I suspect that starting your own version of the API is the Software Designer / Software Architect version of Programmers’ “I know best so I’m going to do my part of the code my way which is different from everybody else’s”.
Mind you, at the very least good Software Architects should know best, but sometimes people get the title without having the chops for it.
In my experience, having to write new v2 (or in my case v4) endpoints for most new features was expected.
v4??? At that point I’m just gonna guess the data
It was basically the same thing. In the code base, there was only v3 and v4. I never bothered to check what happened to v1 and v2, but I suspect they were used in an older, archived code base.