DZone
Thanks for visiting DZone today,
Edit Profile
  • Manage Email Subscriptions
  • How to Post to DZone
  • Article Submission Guidelines
Sign Out View Profile
  • Post an Article
  • Manage My Drafts
Over 2 million developers have joined DZone.
Log In / Join
Refcards Trend Reports
Events Video Library
Refcards
Trend Reports

Events

View Events Video Library

Related

  • Beyond Manual Annotation: Engineering Self-Correcting Pseudo-Labeling Pipelines
  • Building Threat Intelligence Pipelines Using Python, APIs, and Elasticsearch
  • Implementing Secure API Gateways for Microservices Architecture
  • Contract-First Integration: Building Scalable Systems With Flyway, OpenAPI, and Kafka

Trending

  • Observability for Agents and Workflows: Tracing Prompts, Tool Calls, and Business Outcomes End-to-End
  • Build a GitHub Slack Bot With AWS Bedrock and MCP, Part 1
  • Chaos Engineering Has a Blind Spot. Agentic AI Lives in It.
  • Securing the AI Host: Spring AI MCP Server Communication With API Keys
  1. DZone
  2. Data Engineering
  3. Databases
  4. Should You Craft Your Own API Definition Format?

Should You Craft Your Own API Definition Format?

Have you ever wondered if you should make your own API definition format? Here's a look at what you'll need to deliver if choosing this path.

By 
Kin Lane user avatar
Kin Lane
·
Feb. 25, 16 · Analysis
Likes (1)
Comment
Save
Tweet
Share
4.5K Views

Join the DZone community and get the full member experience.

Join For Free

I have had multiple conversations with folks in the space who are building services and tooling for the API sector lately, where I was asked whether or not they should only be using existing API definition formats, or create their own API definition format that better represents what they are delivering. The reasoning is usually that they feel their own format would offer a more comprehensive approach than any single, existing API definition could--yet they fully understand the potential for adoption when they use existing formats like OpenAPI Spec and API Blueprint.

My answer to them is you deliver d) All The Above. I fully get that you will have your own unique view of the API space, and of what your tools and services will deliver, so you should be defining your own schema, but that you also can't ignore what is happening with OpenAPI Spec and API Blueprint either. There is a groundswell of services, tooling, and savvy API architects and developers using these existing API definition formats, and you do not want to be an island in this very connected sea.

Some examples of this already in motion can be found with APIMATIC and Runscope. Both of these providers fluently speak multiple existing API definition formats, but they also have their own, a custom format for describing what their service(s) brings to the table. I'd say the one difference is that Runscope is more focused on their own format, emphasizing the import/export in the Runscope version while APIMATIC is holding their version behind the scenes and emphasizing the use the existing API definition format of their own.

I think it is important that service providers flex both their own spec, as well as supporting existing formats like these providers do, even if it is just by using the API Transformer service. However, there is also an opportunity at the intersection of these two worlds with the x- extension for OpenAPI Spec. I honestly am unsure if API Blueprint has similar features, but will find out shortly. This is where I see API service providers merging their own custom schema, with the existing OpenAPI Spec. You can do the same within the API discovery format APIs.json when it comes to defining your API indexes and collections. 

As I talk OpenAPI Spec, API Blueprint, and APIs.json with more providers, I am finding that the majority of them are understanding the importance of supporting the leading formats, but also see aspects of the space that don't get covered in these formats, and want to better contribute their own vision of the space. I support both these paths, as long as we do not ever find ourselves cornered in our dogma silos, only believing in a single API definition format, or only supporting our own proprietary format that nobody else speaks. #Balance #Interroperability

API

Published at DZone with permission of Kin Lane. See the original article here.

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

Related

  • Beyond Manual Annotation: Engineering Self-Correcting Pseudo-Labeling Pipelines
  • Building Threat Intelligence Pipelines Using Python, APIs, and Elasticsearch
  • Implementing Secure API Gateways for Microservices Architecture
  • Contract-First Integration: Building Scalable Systems With Flyway, OpenAPI, and Kafka

Partner Resources

×

Comments

The likes didn't load as expected. Please refresh the page and try again.

  • RSS
  • X
  • Facebook

ABOUT US

  • About DZone
  • Support and feedback
  • Community research

ADVERTISE

  • Advertise with DZone

CONTRIBUTE ON DZONE

  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Become a Contributor
  • Core Program
  • Visit the Writers' Zone

LEGAL

  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy

CONTACT US

  • 3343 Perimeter Hill Drive
  • Suite 215
  • Nashville, TN 37211
  • [email protected]

Let's be friends:

  • RSS
  • X
  • Facebook