> But the notion of JrGQL and GQL as query languages means that the servers handling these calls must be query resolvers. Unlike most restful interfaces which tend to devote a single uniform interface per endpoint with only minor modifications, a full query model of your domain means an explosive quantity of potential strategies piped through a single endpoint.
GQL does seem to encourage, if not assume, a type-theoretical graph datastore as the backend. (Who couldn't whip such a thing together, if it were lacking?)
But it does not require one. This point may be lost in the tutorial and examples shown on graphql.org. There is no reason one could not map a basic GQL service onto an existing set of REST endpoints, with each one a type, and the return of their fields controlled by the request.
GQL does seem to encourage, if not assume, a type-theoretical graph datastore as the backend. (Who couldn't whip such a thing together, if it were lacking?)
But it does not require one. This point may be lost in the tutorial and examples shown on graphql.org. There is no reason one could not map a basic GQL service onto an existing set of REST endpoints, with each one a type, and the return of their fields controlled by the request.