Except of course that http has a myriad of response codes that are more useful than a 200 with an error body. This was a serious mistake of GraphQL imo

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

What's wrong with graphql over a web socket? Graphql doesn't necessitate http or any other transport method, it can be done via pigeons. Graphql has zero control over how http works when you use graphql over http, it doesn't force implementors to use http at all

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 5 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Aww a whole new generation of devs get to make the same mistakes SOAP made. Makes me feel all fuzzy inside.

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

I used SOAP in my first web dev job over a decade ago when I was making flight search software and connecting to horrific APIs owned by the airline industry to get flight details and purchase tickets. Why are these two things even remotely the same? It's closer to SQL than SOAP, and I'd choose graphql over any soap api. I still wouldn't do it over http if I could avoid it though.

[–] Olap@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Meanwhile, in the real world...

[–] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

Then complain to Apollo or whoever created the server, not the graphql spec. I've used graphql over a web socket on production apps for almost a decade now. I don't use http for graphql if I can avoid it and I always have been able to.