|
|
|
|
|
by 8bithero
1029 days ago
|
|
This approach would also be a nightmare if you ever decided to refactor the frontend. You'd be forced to do double the work since failing to update your backend would probably result in nonsensical legacy naming... I'd also dread to think what would happen if you also used the backend to serve a mobile app. You'd end up spending 40% of your time trying to figure out what to name fields before eventually going full circle and reverting back to logical generic names :| |
|
Instead of just implementing ACLs/permissions on existing APIs you have to develop and maintain two APIs, one for the customers (that will get outdated with lot of missing features and be less battle-tested) and one “real API”.