The Future of API Design: GraphQL Federation and Beyond

Let’s get to it:

In today’s world, most companies have shifted from one big application to many smaller microservices.
Each microservice does its own job — one might handle payments, another handles products, another users, and so on.

Here’s the problem:
When you use GraphQL with microservices, you often end up with a single giant GraphQL “gateway” that has to know about all the microservices.
As your company grows, so does that GraphQL gateway — until it becomes a bottleneck. Every change in one service can ripple through the entire system, making updates risky and slow.

Enter GraphQL Federation 2.0
Federation is like a city with multiple neighborhoods — each microservice can have its own mini GraphQL schema and work independently, but still appear to clients as one unified GraphQL API.

In Federation 2.0:

  • Each service defines the part of the graph it owns.
  • The gateway stitches all the parts together dynamically.
  • You can add/remove services without disrupting the whole API.

Example (non-technical analogy):
Imagine a travel booking site:

  • Flights Service knows about flights.
  • Hotels Service knows about hotels.
  • Reviews Service knows about reviews.

In a non-federated GraphQL setup, you’d have to put all flight, hotel, and review data into one schema inside the gateway — a pain to maintain.
With Federation, each service manages its own schema, and the gateway combines them on-the-fly. This keeps things modular, faster to develop, and easier to scale.


How it helps:

Comparing Federation to REST and gRPC

Feature GraphQL Federation 2.0 REST gRPC
Single endpoint for all data Yes (via unified graph) Each service has its own URL Each service has its own RPC method
Strong typing Yes No built-in typing Yes (Protocol Buffers)
Over-fetching / Under-fetching issues No (fetch exactly what you need) Common problem Rare
Performance in microservices Optimized via subgraphs Many network calls Fast binary transport
Ease of onboarding High for devs, clear schema Variable, depends on docs Steeper learning curve
Cross-service schema evolution Federated ownership makes it safer Needs coordinated updates Needs proto changes

Pros of GraphQL Federation 2.0:

  • Decentralized ownership — teams work independently.
  • Easy scaling — add/remove microservices without major rewrites.
  • A single source of truth for clients.
  • Better developer experience with strong typing and autocomplete.

Cons:

  • Steeper initial setup.
  • Requires consistent schema design discipline across teams.
  • Gateway adds an extra layer — must be optimized for performance.

In essence:

Barebones Apollo Gateway + Node.js Example


// gateway.js
const { ApolloServer } = require('@apollo/server');
const { ApolloGateway } = require('@apollo/gateway');

const gateway = new ApolloGateway({
  serviceList: [
    { name: 'products', url: 'http://localhost:4001/graphql' },
    { name: 'reviews', url: 'http://localhost:4002/graphql' },
  ],
});

const server = new ApolloServer({ gateway });

server.listen({ port: 4000 }).then(({ url }) => {
  console.log(`🚀 Gateway ready at ${url}`);
});

// products.js
const { ApolloServer, gql } = require('apollo-server');

const typeDefs = gql`
  type Product {
    id: ID!
    name: String
  }
  type Query {
    products: [Product]
  }
`;

const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    products: () => [{ id: '1', name: 'Laptop' }],
  },
};

new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers })
  .listen({ port: 4001 })
  .then(({ url }) => console.log(`Products service at ${url}`));

Summary

  • Problem: Microservices + GraphQL can create scaling bottlenecks in a single gateway.
  • Solution: GraphQL Federation 2.0 decentralizes ownership of schemas.
  • Benefit: Teams work independently, services scale better, clients still see one unified API.
  • Comparison: Federation keeps the benefits of GraphQL but scales like REST/gRPC microservices.
  • Code: Apollo Gateway + subservices = plug-and-play federation.

“APIs are like orchestras — Federation is the conductor that keeps all the microservices in tune.”


Bibliography:

Posted in

Leave a comment