Pros of swagger-core

• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Supports a wider range of Java frameworks beyond Spring
• Offers more customization options for advanced use cases

Cons of swagger-core

• Requires more manual configuration and setup
• Less seamless integration with Spring Boot applications
• May have a steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

swagger-core:

@Api(value = "users")
@Path("/users")
public class UserResource {
    @GET
    @ApiOperation(value = "Get user by ID")
    public Response getUserById(@QueryParam("id") Long id) {
        // Implementation
    }
}

springdoc-openapi:

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/users")
public class UserController {
    @GetMapping
    @Operation(summary = "Get user by ID")
    public ResponseEntity<User> getUserById(@RequestParam Long id) {
        // Implementation
    }
}

Key Differences

1. Annotation usage: swagger-core uses @Api and @ApiOperation, while springdoc-openapi leverages Spring's existing annotations and adds @Operation for additional OpenAPI information.

2. Framework integration: springdoc-openapi is specifically designed for Spring Boot, offering tighter integration and easier setup, while swagger-core is more framework-agnostic.

3. Configuration: springdoc-openapi typically requires less configuration, as it automatically detects Spring components and generates OpenAPI documentation, whereas swagger-core often needs more manual setup.

4. Spring Boot compatibility: springdoc-openapi is built with Spring Boot in mind, making it a more natural fit for Spring Boot applications, while swagger-core may require additional adapters or configuration for optimal use with Spring Boot.

Pros of springfox

• More mature project with a longer history and larger community
• Supports older versions of Spring Boot (2.x and earlier)
• Offers more customization options for advanced use cases

Cons of springfox

• No longer actively maintained (last release in 2020)
• Lacks support for OpenAPI 3.0 specification
• May have compatibility issues with newer Spring Boot versions (3.x+)

Code Comparison

springfox:

@Configuration
@EnableSwagger2
public class SwaggerConfig {
    @Bean
    public Docket api() {
        return new Docket(DocumentationType.SWAGGER_2)
            .select()
            .apis(RequestHandlerSelectors.any())
            .paths(PathSelectors.any())
            .build();
    }
}

springdoc-openapi:

@Configuration
@OpenAPIDefinition(info = @Info(title = "My API", version = "v1"))
public class OpenApiConfig {
    @Bean
    public OpenAPI customOpenAPI() {
        return new OpenAPI()
            .components(new Components())
            .info(new Info().title("My API").version("v1"));
    }
}

Both libraries aim to generate OpenAPI documentation for Spring Boot applications, but springdoc-openapi is more up-to-date and aligned with modern Spring Boot versions and OpenAPI specifications.

Pros of openapi-generator

• Supports multiple programming languages and frameworks
• Generates both client and server code
• Offers a wide range of customization options

Cons of openapi-generator

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive features
• May require more configuration for specific use cases
• Generated code might need manual adjustments

Code Comparison

springdoc-openapi:

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/api")
public class UserController {
    @GetMapping("/users")
    public List<User> getUsers() {
        // Implementation
    }
}

openapi-generator:

@javax.annotation.Generated(value = "org.openapitools.codegen.languages.JavaClientCodegen")
public class UserApi {
    public ApiResponse<List<User>> getUsersWithHttpInfo() throws ApiException {
        // Generated implementation
    }
}

The springdoc-openapi example shows a simple Spring Boot controller, while the openapi-generator example demonstrates a generated API client. springdoc-openapi integrates seamlessly with existing Spring Boot applications, whereas openapi-generator creates standalone API clients and servers based on OpenAPI specifications.

Pros of OpenAPI-Specification

• Industry-standard specification for describing RESTful APIs
• Language-agnostic, allowing for broader adoption across different tech stacks
• Extensive ecosystem of tools and libraries for various use cases

Cons of OpenAPI-Specification

• Requires manual creation and maintenance of API documentation
• Less integration with specific frameworks or libraries
• May require additional tooling for code generation or validation

Code Comparison

OpenAPI-Specification (YAML):

openapi: 3.0.0
info:
  title: Sample API
  version: 1.0.0
paths:
  /users:
    get:
      summary: List users

springdoc-openapi (Java):

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/users")
public class UserController {
    @GetMapping
    @Operation(summary = "List users")
    public List<User> listUsers() {
        // Implementation
    }
}

SpringDoc OpenAPI automatically generates OpenAPI documentation from Spring Boot applications, while OpenAPI-Specification provides a standardized format for describing APIs across different platforms and languages. SpringDoc OpenAPI offers tighter integration with Spring Boot, reducing manual documentation efforts, whereas OpenAPI-Specification provides more flexibility and broader adoption across various technologies.

Pros of Redoc

• Focused on API documentation rendering with a sleek, customizable UI
• Supports multiple themes and responsive design out-of-the-box
• Lightweight and can be easily integrated into existing web applications

Cons of Redoc

• Limited to OpenAPI/Swagger specification rendering
• Requires manual integration with backend systems
• Less suitable for automatic API documentation generation from code

Code Comparison

Redoc usage:

<script src="https://cdn.redoc.ly/redoc/latest/bundles/redoc.standalone.js"></script>
<redoc spec-url="https://petstore.swagger.io/v2/swagger.json"></redoc>

Springdoc-openapi usage:

@Configuration
@OpenAPIDefinition(info = @Info(title = "My API", version = "v1"))
public class OpenApiConfig {
    // Configuration code
}

Redoc focuses on rendering OpenAPI specifications, while Springdoc-openapi integrates with Spring Boot to automatically generate and expose API documentation. Springdoc-openapi offers more comprehensive features for Spring-based applications, including automatic generation of OpenAPI definitions from code. Redoc, on the other hand, excels in providing a polished, customizable documentation UI that can be easily embedded in various web applications.

Pros of Prism

• Language-agnostic: Works with any API specification, not limited to Spring Boot applications
• Standalone mock server: Can be run independently without integrating into an existing application
• Supports multiple specification formats: OpenAPI, AsyncAPI, and JSON Schema

Cons of Prism

• Lacks automatic documentation generation for existing code
• Requires manual setup and configuration for each API endpoint
• Limited integration with existing frameworks and libraries

Code Comparison

Springdoc-openapi (Java):

@RestController
@Tag(name = "User API")
public class UserController {
    @GetMapping("/users")
    @Operation(summary = "Get all users")
    public List<User> getAllUsers() {
        // Implementation
    }
}

Prism (Configuration file):

openapi: 3.0.0
paths:
  /users:
    get:
      summary: Get all users
      responses:
        '200':
          description: Successful response
          content:
            application/json:
              schema:
                type: array
                items:
                  $ref: '#/components/schemas/User'

Springdoc-openapi automatically generates OpenAPI documentation from annotated code, while Prism requires manual configuration of API specifications. Springdoc-openapi is tightly integrated with Spring Boot, offering seamless documentation generation. Prism, on the other hand, provides a more flexible, language-agnostic approach for API mocking and testing across various platforms and frameworks.