They advocate one graph, because it's too hard to merge graphs in parent-child (many-to-one, many-to-many) relationships (recursively) in a flexible way.
This is purely because of technical limitation of GraphQL IMO.
* Non-GraphQL services (speaking REST, gRPC, whatever) * GraphQL gateways, owned by frontend teams/applications.
E.g. each frontend team/application owns its own schema owned by these teams. They can compose the backend services however they wish—and whatever is the most natural representation for their domain.
Yup, we see this pattern a lot. You get the benefits of fewer bytes on the wire, typed APIs, elimination of data fetching code, etc.
But it leaves a lot on the table. The bigger wins come when new features can draw from all your data (in unanticipated combinations) without new API or services development, when you can make new data available for every team's use just by plugging it into the central graph, and when you have a birds-eye view of exactly how all your data is being used so you know where to make further investments.
Am I missing something here? Has this been addressed?
Thanks.