I have an application that will be consuming several REST APIs by a number of third parties and I am tossing up between using HttpClient and ServiceStack.Client to consume them.
I'd love to stay unified and use ServiceStack.Client, but I'm not sure if it's targeted more to support the patterns & practices of a ServiceStack REST API or whether it is flexible enough to be used to consume any arbitrary HTTP REST API.
Specifically, the APIs I am consuming have their own custom authentication methods (not basic or digest etc) and require the client to accept cookies. Is ServiceStack.Client appropriate to use in these scenarios?
Following on from what #mythz said, I ended up using the ServiceStack HTTP Utils library.
To handle cookies and custom authentication requirements, I hooked the 'requestFilter' parameter that is available in most of the extension methods, to manipulate the post's header prior to it being sent. It's just a simple Action.
It's covered my needs quite well and been quite elegant.
Related
I am working with another team that is providing me a web service to call.
The web service has a few methods that I can call and it gives response values.
I recently found out that they are coding it as a "RESTful" service. I am not very experienced in RESTful services, but to my (very limited) understanding, traditional method calling is not what REST is about (though it can be done).
Is REST the wrong approach if all you are doing is creating custom web methods to call?
NOTE: I think this is the other teams first real experience with web services. I am worried that they have been beguiled by the REST buzz and are not using the best protocol for what they are building.
What you are describing sounds to me as RPC over HTTP and that can't be called REST as you are basically at level zero of the Richardson Maturity Model.
REST is an architecture style which allows a lot of freedom in the implementation. But you still have to respect the REST constraints, mainly the HATEOAS.
Is REST the wrong approach if all you are doing is creating custom web methods to call?
In most cases SOAP is used for this scenario, but people are somehow afraid of SOAP (maybe because of it's bad reputation for being called "Simple" when it wasn't) and prefer to go for something simpler which is basically a HTTP RPC API that they believe is actually REST, when it isn't.
In conclusion, you can keep your web service as it is - if it's safe and meets your needs - but you can't call it REST. It's RPC.
We have an established WCF SOAP service. Its interface is defined in WSDL, from which C# classes are generated for our server (customers generate client-side bindings in various languages, from the same WSDL). The WSDL has a current version, which we can change a bit, and old versions, which we can't change or drop without a deprecation period, consultation etc. The SOAP requests tend to be complicated, having multiple XML namespaces within the same request.
The WCF SOAP service has a lot of "smarts" in it, and provides exactly the kinds of fetching and reporting facilities that we need for a new Web application that we need to make. We hope to use AngularJS for the client side of that. But these complex SOAP requests aren't easy to make in JavaScript world. If only we had a REST service, we could use angular Resource service. If not that, then a server that spoke JSON, albeit in an RPC style like SOAP, would run a fairly close second.
I've had various ideas for how the impedance mismatch between our server and client might be mitigated. But nothing sounds quick or easy.
I've thought of: -
Write a new REST service. Exactly what the client-side wants, but a serious piece of new development.
WebHttpBinding looks to offer something. But seems to me like it requires C# markup of custom attribute (how to achieve when our C# is generated from WSDL) and possibly wouldn't support our complex types
Obtain or write loads of client-side JS to abstract away calling SOAP services. But, unless this can be auto-generated from the WSDL, it's a huge amount of client-side code to write.
Write an IDispatchMessageFormatter for the server, to accept some JSON format of messages that I invent. Sounds hard, especially as good examples of people implementing and integrating IDispatchMessageFormatter seem hard to come by.
Write a MessageEncoder to swap between JSON and XML. But this isn't really an encoding operation, as became very clear when I tried to write it!
I'm searching for suggestions.
Generally, I recommend a REST service for any AngularJS development and have wrapped a number of legacy systems with Node.js API servers. Of course there is a massive amount of "it depends", but generally most projects will be happier and more productive following that route.
Some Things To Think About
How well does your current SOAP API fit the user interface requirements?
Are you experienced with Express, Sinatra, Flask or other micro-framework that allow rapid development of REST APIs? I find I can build a solid Node.js Express API server in a couple of hours and then extend it as I build the AngularJS application out.
How experienced are you with AngularJS? It's a more advanced project to build a complex data layer client-side.
Six Reasons Why REST is Important for AngularJS
It's much faster to write Angular code using $resource and $http. Get the API right is a good recommendation for effective AngularJS development. Indeed, you could argue that AngularJS is designed for REST, and that's why plain JavaScript works for the model (see 2).
Angular's plain-old JavaScript object data model works well with a REST API that speaks JSON that matches the user interface. However, issues arise when there isn't a good fit- Angular doesn't have a formal data model so you end up writing an lot of code trying to rationalize your API to work well with Angular. 3rd party libraries like breeze.js may offer some solution, but it's still awkward.
You can scale easily with caching. It's easy to add Redis or memcache or Varnish or other common HTTP caching solutions into the mix. Resource-based abstractions are perfect for caching strategies due to the transparency and idempotency of a REST api.
Loose coupling of front-end and server- it will be easier to support changes to the backend if you migrate off SOAP or need to integrate with other services.
It's generally easier to test JSON APIs separately from AngularJS logic, so your test suites will be simpler and more effective.
Your new REST API will be easier to leverage for future AngularJS and JSON-oriented projects.
I hope that helps.
Cheers,
Nick
in developing your own RESTful API. does it necessarilly needed to use the four different http methods? GET POST PUT & DELETE?
i was checking the Twitter REST API and saw that they are just using the common methods (GET & POST)
Short answer: No
Long Answer:
REST is not specific to any one protocol, instead it is a style of programming. This is helpful to keep in mind because a RESTful endpoint should be thought of as having specific goals. Your job is to expose the web service in the most RESTful way possible.
When you're making a RESTful API you are not required to use any specific HTTP methods. Instead, REST can be embodied in this guiding principal: That you must expose individually identifiable resources; these resources must be manipulable in their exposed form. Oh and use self descriptive messages.
I'm sure this is a leaky explanation. Try to see, though, that REST becomes much more clear when you have the key idea in mind. RESTful practices expose resources in a way that allows us work with state in a sane manner. The technical details of how to implement a RESTful API can be learned by reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer
After that, read something specific to your language. Fast track: find some RESTful API written in your language and clone it/play with it.
You should use whatever HTTP methods are appropriate for the operations you expose.
For example, you should accept HTTP DELETE requests only for operations that delete things.
If your API does not allow callers to delete things (eg, a traffic or weather API), you should not accept the DELETE verb.
Only if you are going to support those logical operations:
GET - fetch a resource
PUT - update (or create) a resource
DELETE - delete a resource
POST - several uses: create a new resource in a collection, perform some operation that will alter a resource in some one (as opposed to PUTting an entirely new version of a resource)
Most APIs will want to to provide those operations, and will use all those methods. And don't forget HEAD - fetch information about a resource (but not the resource itself).
I am new to REST. I was reading many article about REST. Still I am confused and do not know exact reason when we should go for REST rather than WCF traditional services.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, see this question which has pointers to many other interesting posts on WCF and REST. In terms of whether or not you need to expose a RESTful service at all, that depends on your application.
If you are building a public API, using REST with JSON or XML is popular in part because it's a very generic way to expose an API since clients don't generally need to generate code to use your API. Whereas with something like SOAP, code generation for the client is a lot more standard. If your clients are javascript, for instance, it's quite easy to use a RESTful service. If your API is only for internal consumption (i.e. you own the client and the server), then the benefits of REST are somewhat diminished, and it may be easier to use something like WCF.
In general, REST is a good choice when you don't mind being limited to HTTP, your service endpoints can be described well using RESTful concepts, you don't need a contract (like a WSDL), and when you don't want to worry that a client of your service won't be supported for technical reasons.
I've used RESTful web services as a reference in the past, it's a great book.
I was thinking about the architecture of a web application that I am planning on building and I found myself thinking a lot about a core part of the application. Since I will want to create, for example, an android application to access it, I was already thinking about having an API.
Given the fact that I will want to have an external API to my application from day one, is it a good idea to use that API as an interface between the interface layer (web) and the business layer of my application? This means that even the main interface of my application would access the data through the API. What are the downsides of this approach? performance?
In more general terms, if one is building a web application that is likely to need to be accessed in different ways, is it a good architectural design to have an API (web service) as the interface between the interface layer and business layer? Is REST a good "tool" for that?
Sounds like you've got two questions there, so my answer is in two parts.
Firstly, should you use an API between the interface layer and the business layer? This is certainly a valid approach, one that I'm using in my current project, but you'll have to decide on the benefits yourself, because only you know your project. Possibly the largest factor to consider is whether there will be enough different clients accessing the business layer to justify the extra development effort in developing an API? Often that simply means more than 1 client, as the benefits of having an API will be evident when you come to release changes or bug fixes. Also consider the added complexity, the extra code maintenance overhead and any benefits that might come from separating the interface and business layers such as increased testability.
Secondly, if you implement an API, should you use REST? REST is an architecture, which says as much about how the remainder of your application is developed as it does the API. It's no good defining resources at the API level that don't translate to the Business Layer. Rest tends to be a good approach when you want lots of people to be able to develop against your API (like NetFlix for example). In the case of my current project, we've gone for XML over HTTP, because we don't need the benefits that Rest generally offers (or SOAP for that matter).
In general, the rule of thumb is to implement the simplest solution that works, and without coding yourself into a corner, develop for today's requirements, not tomorrow's.
Chris
You will definitely need need a Web Service layer if you're going to be accessing it from a native client over the Internet.
There are obviously many approaches and solutions to achieve this however I consider the correct architectural guideline to follow is to have a well-defined Service Interface on the Server which is accessed by the Gateway on the client. You would then use POCO DTO's (Plain old DTO's) to communicate between the endpoints. The DTO's main purpose is to provide optimal representation of your web service over the wire, it also allows you to avoid having to deal with serialization as it should be handled transparently by the Client Gateway and Service Interface libraries.
It really depends on how to big your project / app is whether or not you want want to go through the effort to mapping your DTO's to the client and server domain models. For large applications the general approach would be on the client to map your DTO's to your UI Models and have your UI Views bind to that. On the server you would map your DTO's to your domain models and depending on the implementation of the service persist that.
REST is an architectural pattern which for small projects I consider an additional overhead/complexity as it is not as good programattic fit compared to RPC / Document Centric web services. In not so many words the general idea of REST is to develop your services around resources. These resources can have multiple representations which your web service should provide depending on the preferred Content-Type indicated by your HTTP Client (i.e. in the HTTP ACCEPT HEADER). The canonical urls for your web services should also be logically formed (e.g. /customers/reports/1 as opposed to /GetCustomerReports?Id=1) and your web services would ideally return the list of 'valid states your client can enter' with each response. Basically REST is a nice approach promoting a loosely-coupled architecture and re-use however requires more effort to 'adhere' to than standard RPC/Document based web services whose benefits are unlikely to be visible in small projects.
If you're still evaluating what web service technology you should use, you may want to consider using my open source web framework as it is optimized for this task. The DTO's that you use to define your web services interface with can be re-used on the client (which is not normally the case) to provide a strongly-typed interface where all the serialization is taken for you. It also has the added benefit of enabling each web service you create to be called by SOAP 1.1/1.2, XML and JSON web services automatically without any extra configuration so you can choose the most optimal end point for every client scenario, i.e. Native Desktop or Web App, etc.
My recent preference, which is based on J2EE6, is to implement the business logic in session beans and then add SOAP and RESTful web services as needed. It's very simple to add the glue to implement the web services around those session beans. That way I can provide the service that makes the most sense for a particular user application.
We've had good luck doing something like this on a project. Our web services mainly do standard content management, with a high proportion of reads (GET) to writes (PUT, POST, DELETE). So if your logic layer is similar, this is a very reasonable approach to consider.
In one case, we have a video player app on Android (Motorola Droid, Droid 2, Droid X, ...) which is supported by a set of REST web services off in the cloud. These expose a catalog of video on demand content, enable video session setup and tear-down, handle bookmarking, and so on. REST worked out very well for this.
For us one of the key advantages of REST is scalability: since RESTful GET responses may be cached in the HTTP infrastructure, many more clients can be served from the same web application.
But REST doesn't seem to fit some kinds of business logic very well. For instance in one case I wrapped a daily maintenance operation behind a web service API. It wasn't obvious what verb to use, since this operation read data from a remote source, used it to do a lot of creates and updates to a local database, then did deletes of old data, then went off and told an external system to do stuff. So I settled on making this a POST, making this part of the API non-RESTful. Even so, by having a web services layer on top of this operation, we can run the daily script on a timer, run it in response to some external event, and/or have it run as part of a higher level workflow.
Since you're using Android, take a look at the Java Restlet Framework. There's a Restlet edition supporting Android. The director of engineering at Overstock.com raved about it to me a few years ago, and everything he told us was true, it's a phenomenally well-done framework that makes things easy.
Sure, REST could be used for that. But first ask yourself, does it make sense? REST is a tool like any other, and while a good one, not always the best hammer for every nail. The advantage of building this interface RESTfully is that, IMO, it will make it easier in the future to create other uses for this data - maybe something you haven't thought of yet. If you decide to go with a REST API your next question is, what language will it speak? I've found AtomPub to be a great way for processes/applications to exchange info - and it's very extensible so you can add a lot of custom metadata and yet still be eaily parsed with any Atom libraries. Microsoft uses AtomPub in it's cloud [Azure] platform to talk between the data producers and consumers. Just a thought.