I think that you can't have identical names because these names are in fact types all in one global namespace. I took inspiration on naming from here: https://blog.apollographql.com/designing-graphql-mutations-e09de826ed97 Usually when I am unsure how to name or structure something (I am pretty new to graphql) I am just looking for graphql articles on the subject and translating that to Lacinia.
Fine grained mutations make it difficult to have transactionality. I believe there's no transactional guarantees in mutations? Or none specified in band at least.
Is the ANTLR grammar and the shape of a parsed query considered to be stable APIs?
If yes, is there a way to take the result of a parsed query, tweak it and stringify it again?
Iām trying to figure out what would it take to build a ClojureScript/Lacinia client.
Most graphql clients need to augment the queries with some metadata like typename, ensure that an ID is always present etc
We provide the preview API because we don't want to document & support what a parsed query looks like. It's changed a few times, and keeping it malleable is important to support improved performance and other goals.
The re-graph client also support clj in the newest, or about to be released version.