apollo-boost vs apollo-client: What are the differences?
Introduction:
In the world of web development, Apollo has become a popular choice for integrating GraphQL with JavaScript applications. When working with Apollo, two commonly used packages are apollo-boost and apollo-client. While both serve the purpose of handling GraphQL requests and managing local state, there are some key differences between the two that differentiate their functionality and capabilities.
-
Cache Configuration: One notable difference between apollo-boost and apollo-client lies in the way they handle cache configuration. apollo-boost simplifies cache setup by providing a pre-configured InMemoryCache instance with sensible defaults. Conversely, apollo-client allows for more fine-grained control over the cache configuration by allowing developers to create and configure their own instance of InMemoryCache.
-
Dependency Management: When it comes to dependency management, apollo-boost strives for simplicity by bundling several Apollo packages together, including apollo-client, graphql, and graphql-tag. This bundling approach helps to reduce the number of dependencies required when installing and using apollo-boost. On the other hand, apollo-client allows for more flexibility in terms of dependency management, as it allows developers to selectively install and configure the necessary Apollo packages based on their specific project requirements.
-
Network Interface: The way network requests are made differs between apollo-boost and apollo-client. apollo-boost utilizes the createHttpLink function from the apollo-link-http package to create the network interface, automatically handling the required setup for HTTP requests. In contrast, apollo-client provides more flexibility by allowing developers to choose their preferred network interface implementation, such as createHttpLink or createWebSocketLink, based on the specific needs of their application.
-
Extensions Support: Another difference worth mentioning is the support for extensions within Apollo. apollo-boost does not provide built-in support for extensions, which limits the ability to perform advanced operations like custom logging or modifying error handling behavior. On the other hand, apollo-client offers support for extensions, empowering developers with more flexibility and control over the Apollo client functionality.
-
Directives Support: Directives in GraphQL allow for more dynamic query execution by modifying the behavior of fields or the execution plan. apollo-boost lacks native support for directives, meaning developers need to manually implement directive support if required. In contrast, apollo-client provides built-in support for directives, simplifying the implementation and execution of queries involving directives.
-
Client Configuration: While both apollo-boost and apollo-client provide ways to configure the Apollo client, the granularity of control differs. apollo-boost abstracts away some low-level configuration options, providing a simplified API and sensible default behavior. On the other hand, apollo-client offers more extensive configuration options, allowing developers to fine-tune aspects such as HTTP headers, cache persistence, and batching to better suit their specific needs.
In summary, the key differences between apollo-boost and apollo-client lie in cache configuration, dependency management, network interface setup, extensions support, directives support, and client configuration. These distinctions give developers the flexibility to choose the package that aligns better with their project requirements and preferences.
