1042
That shadowy place (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
Mufasa: Look, Simba. Everything the light touches is our beautiful, well-maintained code base. Simba: But what's that shadowy place over there? Mufasa: API V1, which still handles 95% of requests.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 36 points 2 years ago (11 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 35 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I don't get why anyone would publish v2 when it not really on feature-parity. Do companies really start releasing v2 endpoints slowly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Man I’ve never seen it not work. It’s pretty much the only pattern I use because it’s so successful. Meanwhile the other teams in my company have numerous failed migrations because they try to rewrite the entire thing at once instead of using the strangler fig pattern.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago*

    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 was 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    In my experience, having to write new v2 (or in my case v4) endpoints for most new features was expected.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •