For this week’s blog post I wanted to go with the “Backends for Frontends” (BFF) architecture pattern through Microsoft Azure’s documentation(https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/patterns/backends-for-frontends), having read the article in-depth since it gave me some food for thought.
The article explains how BFF works as an API design approach where each type of client; such as a web application, mobile app, or IoT device kind of communicates with its own tailored backend service. Instead of one universal backend trying to serve every kind of client, BFF splits the responsibilities across dedicated backend components. This lets each frontend receive data in exactly the structure and format it needs, without unnecessary complexity or over-fetching. The article also describes when BFF is useful, the problems it solves (like avoiding “one-size-fits-all” backend design), and its trade-offs, such as increased cost and operational overhead.
I guess I chose this resource considering how BFF connects directly to what we’ve been doing in CS-343 with REST APIs, Express endpoints, data validation using OpenAPI, and separating layers of an application. During the recent advanced assignment(referring to the REST API Back End Implementation homework of course), I had to build new endpoints, interact with multiple collections, and send changes to a message broker. That required some time of me thinking carefully about how different parts of the system communicate with each other.
The biggest takeaway for me was how the BFF pattern embraces specialization. Instead of making one giant backend do everything, you just got to let each client have a backend that fits them. This avoids exposing unnecessary fields, reduces client-side processing, and improves performance. It also aligns well with microservices, because each BFF can orchestrate multiple services behind the scenes. I realized that the structure of our assignments- frontend consuming API endpoints, backend handling logic, and MongoDB representing the persistence layer; is essentially a simplified version of this architectural thinking.
This article also made me reflect on situations where BFF might solve real problems i could probably encounter in the near future. For example, in our backend assignment, if we had a separate mobile client, its data needs would be very different from the web interface that interacts with full guest objects. A BFF layer could format responses appropriately, avoid over-fetching, and simplify the logic on the client side. The idea of tailoring backends to frontends also helps me make sense of why large systems separate responsibilities; it keeps things maintainable and avoids tightly coupled components.
So in short, i’d say that this resource strengthened my understanding of how backend architecture is shaped by client needs. It also helped me see the bigger picture behind concepts we’ve been using: validation, routing, endpoint design, and database access. Going forward, I expect this perspective to help me structure backend code more intentionally, especially when designing APIs that may evolve to support multiple types of clients.
From the blog CS@Worcester – CSTips by Jamaal Gedeon and used with permission of the author. All other rights reserved by the author.




