I have a little client-server application written in asio standalone. It works just fine though I realized there is problem with accepting different messages from different clients.
For example one part of system (let's call it Server A) replies in xml messages, therefore I can specify as an end tag and happily go with read_until.
Problem occurs when another part of system (let's call it Server B) replies in json and i don't want to use as delimiter.
What is the solution to having more connections with different delimiters on one socket? Documentation is vague and I am unable to find example how to do it.
Read the first half dozen or so characters and decide whether it is xml or json. You can probable determing from just the first non-white character: < for xml or { for json. Then read the rest with the appropriate delimiter
Related
What's the most appropriate way in REST to export something as PDF or other document type?
The next example explains my problem:
I have a resource called Banana.
I created all the canonical CRUD rest endpoint for that resource (i.e. GET /bananas; GET /bananas/{id}; POST /bananas/{id}; ...)
Now I need to create an endpoint which downloads a file (PDF, CSV, ..) which contains the representation of all the bananas.
First thing that came to my mind is GET /bananas/export, but in pure rest using verbs in url should not be allowed. Using a more appropriate httpMethod might be cool, something like EXPORT /bananas, but unfortunately this is not (yet?) possible.
Finally I thought about using the Accept header on the same GET /bananas endpoint, which based on the different media type (application/json, application/pdf, ..) returns the corresponding representation of the data (json, pdf, ..), but I'm not sure if I am misusing the Accept header in this way.
Any ideas?
in pure rest using verbs in url should not be allowed.
REST doesn't care what spelling conventions you use in your resource identifiers.
Example: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/post
Even though "post" is a verb (and worse, an HTTP method token!) that URI works just like every other resource identifier on the web.
The more interesting question, from a REST perspective, is whether the identifier should be the same that is used in some other context, or different.
REST cares a lot about caching (that's important to making the web "web scale"). In HTTP, caching is primarily about re-using prior responses.
The basic (but incomplete) idea being that we may be able to re-use a response that shares the same target URI.
HTTP also has built into it a general purpose mechanism for invalidating stored responses that is also focused on the target URI.
So here's one part of the riddle you need to think about: when someone sends a POST request to /bananas, should caches throw away the prior responses with the PDF representations?
If the answer is "no", then you need a different target URI. That can be anything that makes sense to you. /pdfs/bananas for example. (How many common path segments are used in the identifiers depends on how much convenience you will realize from relative references and dot segments.)
If the answer is "yes", then you may want to lean into using content negotiation.
In some cases, the answer might be "both" -- which is to say, to have multiple resources (each with its own identifier) that return the same representations.
That's a normal thing to do; we even have a mechanism for describing which resource is "preferred" (see RFC 6596).
REST does not care about this, but the HTTP standard does. Using the accept header for the expected MIME type is the standard way of doing this, so you did the right thing. No need to move it to a separate endpoint if the data is the same just the format is different.
Media types are the best way to represent this, but there is a practical aspect of this in that people will browse a rest API using root nouns... I'd put some record-count limits on it, maybe GET /bananas/export/100 to get the first 100, and GET /bananas/export/all if they really want all of them.
I am designing my first REST API.
Suppose I have a (SOAP) web service that takes MyData1 and returns MyData2.
It is a pure function with no side effects, for example:
MyData2 myData2 = transform(MyData myData);
transform() does not change the state of the server. My question is, what REST call do I use? MyData can be large, so I will need to put it in the body of the request, so POST seems required. However, POST seems to be used only to change the server state and not return anything, which transform() is not doing. So POST might not be correct? Is there a specific REST technique to use for pure functions that take and return something, or should I just use POST, unload the response body, and not worry about it?
I think POST is the way to go here, because of the sheer fact that you need to pass data in the body. The GET method is used when you need to retrieve information (in the form of an entity), identified by the Request-URI. In short, that means that when processing a GET request, a server is only required to examine the Request-URI and Host header field, and nothing else.
See the pertinent section of the HTTP specification for details.
It is okay to use POST
POST serves many useful purposes in HTTP, including the general purpose of “this action isn’t worth standardizing.”
It's not a great answer, but it's the right answer. The real issue here is that HTTP, which is a protocol for the transfer of documents over a network, isn't a great fit for document transformation.
If you imagine this idea on the web, how would it work? well, you'd click of a bunch of links to get to some web form, and that web form would allow you to specify the source data (including perhaps attaching a file), and then submitting the form would send everything to the server, and you'd get the transformed representation back as the response.
But - because of the payload, you would end up using POST, which means that general purpose components wouldn't have the data available to tell them that the request was safe.
You could look into the WebDav specifications to see if SEARCH or REPORT is a satisfactory fit -- every time I've looked into them for myself I've decided against using them (no, I don't want an HTTP file server).
Lets say I have one api and there are different scenarios to check in that one api.So for this can we add different scenarios in one feature file without calling api again and again.
You can certainly have multiple scenarios in one feature file.
And if you get a response back and you can do all the assertions you have in mind against this single response - you don't need to call again. Maybe you need a single scenario.
If you are expecting all your boundary conditions and non-happy paths to be achieved without making multiple HTTP calls, I'm sorry - I don't think any framework will do that magic for you.
So i have an orchestration that successfully does everything i need it to. Now, i want to reuse the logic in the orchestration, but with a set of slightly different data sources. Rather than copy and paste the orchestration into another one and having to use a decision tree to choose which orchestration to call, I was thinking of making my calls to SQL a little more dynamic.
For example, lets say i have a stored procedure called spGetUSCust. I have coded the orchestration to call the SQL server via a send/receive port with an operation of GetCust on it. It was generated using a strongly typed method so the response message is of a type spGetUSCustResponse.
I now want to call spGetCACust on the same SQL server. The responding data is in the exact same format (structure) as the US stored proc, but they have different names.
So my question is, can i do this by setting the action on the message that will be going to the port within the code? Since my response is strongly typed, will it cause a problem that the response will be really coming from the CA procedure and not the US one? If so, how do i solve that? I could go with generic responses, but they return XML ANY fields and i need to map these responses for additional use in the orchestration.
In an Message Assignment Shape, you can set the WCF.Action property on the request message like this:
MySQLRequest(WCF.Action)="TypedProcedure/dbo/spGetUSCust";
You can use the same physical Port and will have to remove any content in the Action Mapping section.
However, because the Request Messages are different types, you will need two Orchestration Ports, one US, one CA.
I am struggling (in some sense) to determine which HTTP method is more appropriate for rebooting a remote resource: GET or PUT?
On one hand, it seems more semantic to call http://tools.serviceprovider.net/canopies/d34db33fc4f3?reboot=true because one might want to GET a representation of a freshly rebooted canopy.
On the other hand, a reboot is not 'safe' (nor is it necessarily idempotent, but then a canopy or modem is not just a row in a database) so it might seem more semantic to PUT the canopy into a state of rebooting, then have the server return a 202 to indicate that the reboot was initiated and is processing.
I have been reading up on HTTP/1.1, REST, HATEOAS, and other related concepts over the last week, so I am still putting the pieces together. Could a more seasoned developer please weigh in and confirm or dispel my hunch?
A GET doesn't seem appropriate because a GET is expected, like you said, to be "safe". i.e. no action other than retrieval.
A PUT doesn't seem appropriate because a PUT is expected to be idempotent. i.e. multiple identical operations cause same side-effects as as a single operation. Moreover, a PUT is usually used to replace the content at the request URI with the request body.
A POST appears most appropriate here. Because:
A POST need not be safe
A POST need not be idempotent
It also appears meaningful in that you are POSTing a request for a reboot (much like submitting a form, which also happens via POST), which can then be processed, possibly leading to a new URI containing reboot logs/results returned along with a 303 See Other status code.
Interestingly, Tim Bray wrote a blog post on this exact topic (which method to use to tell a resource representing a virtual machine to reboot itself), in which he also argued for POST. At the bottom of that post there are links to follow-ups on that topic, including one from none other than Roy Fielding himself, who concurs.
Rest is definitely not HTTP. But HTTP definitely does not have only four (or eight) methods. Any method is technically valid (even if as an extension method) and any method is RESTful when it is self describing — such as ‘LOCK’, ‘REBOOT’, ‘DELETE’, etc. Something like ‘MUSHROOM’, while valid as an HTTP extension, has no clear meaning or easily anticipated behavior, thus it would not be RESTful.
Fielding has stated that “The REST style doesn’t suggest that limiting the set of methods is a desirable goal. [..] In particular, REST encourages the creation of new methods for obscure operations” and that “it is more efficient in a true REST-based architecture for there to be a hundred different methods with distinct (non-duplicating), universal semantics.”
Sources:
http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/2001-August/003191.html
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/message/4732
With this all in mind I am going to be 'self descriptive' and use the REBOOT method.
Yes, you could effectively create a new command, REBOOT, using POST. But there is a perfectly idempotent way to do reboots using PUT.
Have a last_reboot field that contains the time at which the server was last rebooted. Make a PUT to that field with the current time cause a reboot if the incoming time is newer than the current time. If an intermediate server resends the PUT, no problem -- it has the same value as the first command, so it's a no-op.
You might want to get the current time from the server you're rebooting, unless you know that everyone is reasonably time-synced.
Or you could just use a times_rebooted count, eliminating the need for a clock. A PUT times_rebooted: 4 request will cause a reboot if times_rebooted is currently 3, but not if it's 4 or 5. If the current value is 2 and you PUT a 4, that's an error.
The only advantage to using time, if you have a clock, is that sometimes you care about when it happened. You could of course have BOTH a times_rebooted and a last_reboot_time, letting times_rebooted be the trigger.