Pros of graphql-js

• More mature and widely adopted implementation of GraphQL for JavaScript
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Flexible and can be used with various frameworks and libraries

Cons of graphql-js

• Requires more setup and configuration for complex applications
• Less opinionated, which may lead to inconsistent implementations across projects
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

graphql-js:

const { GraphQLSchema, GraphQLObjectType, GraphQLString } = require('graphql');

const schema = new GraphQLSchema({
  query: new GraphQLObjectType({
    name: 'RootQueryType',
    fields: {
      hello: {
        type: GraphQLString,
        resolve() {
          return 'Hello, World!';
        },
      },
    },
  }),
});

redwoodjs/graphql:

export const schema = gql`
  type Query {
    hello: String!
  }
`

export const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    hello: () => {
      return 'Hello, World!'
    },
  },
}

The redwoodjs/graphql implementation is more concise and follows a convention-over-configuration approach, making it easier for developers to get started quickly. However, graphql-js offers more granular control over the schema definition and resolver implementation, which can be beneficial for complex use cases.

Pros of Apollo Server

• More mature and widely adopted in the GraphQL ecosystem
• Extensive documentation and community support
• Flexible and can be used with various frameworks and databases

Cons of Apollo Server

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to RedwoodJS GraphQL
• May be overkill for smaller projects or simple GraphQL implementations

Code Comparison

Apollo Server setup:

const { ApolloServer } = require('apollo-server');
const typeDefs = require('./schema');
const resolvers = require('./resolvers');

const server = new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers });
server.listen().then(({ url }) => {
  console.log(`🚀 Server ready at ${url}`);
});

RedwoodJS GraphQL setup:

import { createGraphQLHandler } from '@redwoodjs/graphql-server'
import schemas from 'src/graphql/**/*.{js,ts}'
import services from 'src/services/**/*.{js,ts}'

export const handler = createGraphQLHandler({
  schemas,
  services,
})

RedwoodJS GraphQL offers a more streamlined setup process, automatically integrating with the RedwoodJS framework. Apollo Server provides more flexibility but requires manual configuration. Both solutions are powerful, with Apollo Server being more suitable for complex, standalone GraphQL implementations, while RedwoodJS GraphQL excels in rapid development within the RedwoodJS ecosystem.

Pros of GraphQL Yoga

• Lightweight and flexible GraphQL server with minimal setup
• Built-in support for subscriptions and file uploads
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for easy customization

Cons of GraphQL Yoga

• Less opinionated structure compared to RedwoodJS GraphQL
• May require more manual configuration for complex setups
• Not as tightly integrated with a full-stack framework

Code Comparison

GraphQL Yoga:

import { createServer } from '@graphql-yoga/node'

const server = createServer({
  schema: {
    typeDefs: /* GraphQL */ `
      type Query {
        hello: String
      }
    `,
    resolvers: {
      Query: {
        hello: () => 'Hello from Yoga!'
      }
    }
  }
})

server.start()

RedwoodJS GraphQL:

import { createGraphQLHandler } from '@redwoodjs/graphql-server'

import schemas from 'src/graphql/**/*.{js,ts}'
import services from 'src/services/**/*.{js,ts}'

export const handler = createGraphQLHandler({
  schemas,
  services,
})

This comparison highlights the differences in setup and configuration between GraphQL Yoga and RedwoodJS GraphQL. GraphQL Yoga offers a more flexible approach with its server creation, while RedwoodJS GraphQL provides a more structured and opinionated setup within the RedwoodJS framework.

Pros of GraphQL Engine

• Provides instant, real-time GraphQL APIs over existing databases
• Offers built-in authorization and authentication features
• Supports multiple databases, including PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQL Server

Cons of GraphQL Engine

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to GraphQL or Hasura's ecosystem
• May require additional configuration for complex data relationships
• Limited flexibility in customizing the underlying database schema

Code Comparison

GraphQL Engine:

type Query {
  users(limit: Int): [User!]!
}

type User {
  id: Int!
  name: String!
  email: String!
}

RedwoodJS GraphQL:

export const schema = gql`
  type Query {
    users: [User!]!
  }

  type User {
    id: Int!
    name: String!
    email: String!
  }
`

GraphQL Engine focuses on generating GraphQL APIs from existing databases, while RedwoodJS GraphQL is part of a full-stack framework that includes GraphQL API creation. GraphQL Engine offers more out-of-the-box features for database integration and real-time capabilities, whereas RedwoodJS GraphQL provides a more customizable approach within its framework ecosystem. The code comparison shows similar GraphQL schema definitions, but GraphQL Engine's approach is more declarative, while RedwoodJS allows for more programmatic control over the schema and resolvers.

Pros of awesome-graphql

• Comprehensive collection of GraphQL resources, tools, and libraries
• Community-driven with regular updates and contributions
• Covers a wide range of GraphQL-related topics and ecosystems

Cons of awesome-graphql

• Not a functional library or framework, just a curated list
• May include outdated or less maintained resources
• Lacks specific implementation details or code examples

Code comparison

While awesome-graphql doesn't contain actual code, it provides links to various GraphQL implementations and tools. On the other hand, graphql is a functional library within the RedwoodJS framework. Here's a basic example of how you might use GraphQL in a RedwoodJS project:

// graphql
import { createGraphQLHandler } from '@redwoodjs/graphql-server'

export const handler = createGraphQLHandler({
  loggerConfig: { logger, options: {} },
  directives,
  sdls,
  services,
  onException: () => {
    // Implement error handling
  },
})

awesome-graphql would simply provide a link to the RedwoodJS documentation or similar resources for implementing GraphQL in various frameworks and languages.

Pros of Nexus

• More flexible and customizable schema definition
• Better TypeScript integration with auto-generated types
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for additional features

Cons of Nexus

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more boilerplate code for basic setups
• Less opinionated, which may lead to inconsistent implementations

Code Comparison

Nexus:

import { objectType, queryType, makeSchema } from '@nexus/schema'

const User = objectType({
  name: 'User',
  definition(t) {
    t.string('id')
    t.string('name')
  },
})

const Query = queryType({
  definition(t) {
    t.list.field('users', {
      type: 'User',
      resolve: () => [{ id: '1', name: 'Alice' }],
    })
  },
})

const schema = makeSchema({
  types: [Query, User],
})

GraphQL (RedwoodJS):

export const schema = gql`
  type User {
    id: String!
    name: String!
  }

  type Query {
    users: [User!]!
  }
`

export const resolvers = {
  Query: {
    users: () => [{ id: '1', name: 'Alice' }],
  },
}

The Nexus approach offers more programmatic control over schema definition, while the RedwoodJS GraphQL setup is more declarative and concise. Nexus provides better TypeScript integration, but RedwoodJS GraphQL may be easier for beginners to understand and implement quickly.