API Blueprint
Posted4 months agoActive4 months ago
apiblueprint.orgTechstory
skepticalnegative
Debate
60/100
API SpecificationAPI BlueprintOpenapi
Key topics
API Specification
API Blueprint
Openapi
The API Blueprint project is being discussed on HN, with many commenters questioning its relevance and viability due to its archived status and comparison to other API specification formats like OpenAPI.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Active discussionFirst comment
2d
Peak period
11
54-60h
Avg / period
4.7
Comment distribution14 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 14 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Sep 3, 2025 at 11:43 AM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Sep 5, 2025 at 6:04 PM EDT
2d after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
11 comments in 54-60h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Sep 6, 2025 at 5:10 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45117107Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:39:21 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
I ran into some deficiencies, though, at least with the parser I was using with Node/TS -- IIRC (and it's been a few years), I wasn't able to specify a wide variety of disparate responses (e.g., an HTTP 200 with an application/json Content-Type header, an HTTP 200 with a text/plain Content-Type header, and an HTTP 400 response with an X-Error-Code header). Since API Blueprint was introduced, the tooling around OpenAPI has improved dramatically and it's become a de facto standard, so I'd probably avoid API Blueprint for anything serious.
It's unfortunate, though, because I really liked the idea.
Former company enforced OpenAPI specs to be able to publish any API endpoint, devs just wanted to push code, so they made vague shit specs because it's pulling teeth to do it the right way (didn't help that the spec enforcer couldn't fully read YAML documents with references, so copypasta was rampant)...
I guess there's the endless cycle of 1) a format is created, 2) the format evolves to do more, 3) winds up being overbearing, 4) a new format is created...
I've also experienced enterprise OpenAPI deployments where the API specifications were owned by a separate enterprise API architecture team and were fed into some central consumer-facing documentation portal along with whatever unbeknownst infrastructure sat between the application and the Internet. Developers had access to the spec repository, but API architects reviewed PRs and made any recommendations for normalizing interfaces or using existing or canonical types.
Either way works, IMNSHO.
Edit: I should also say that I have likely misrepresented the deficiencies I experienced with API Blueprint. Take it with a grain of salt; I literally do not remember because it's been ... checks code ... nearly five years since I touched that project. The issue I ran into may have been as simple a problem as providing two example POST requests with slightly different payloads or two example HTTP 200 responses with slightly different response bodies. This is something that API documentation might often include to show multiple common use cases. It may have not have even been part of the actual spec or it may have been only a limitation of the specific UI renderer I was using.
Technically this is a feature of JSON Schema, not OpenAPI. But since OpenAPI is a superset of JSON Schema...
It is really just noise: I do not blame the poster (which probably did not realize) but who is supposed to help the algorithm
It's actively developed and used to spec Azure services, see https://azure.github.io/typespec-azure/ and all of the public Azure service specifications at https://github.com/Azure/azure-rest-api-specs (they're all OpenAPI for consistency, but newer development happens in TypeSpec, and the OpenAPI is an output).