Other than readability, why would you use logical URIs?
Surely sending a GET request to /users (to get all users) is the same as /users.php
Surely sending POST to /users/dave with some data to update Dave is the same as /users.php?name=dave&phone=1234
You decide what to do based on the HTTP method, and then you pull apart the URI string anyway.
Logical URIs decouple client code from the implementation details of the server-side code. In your /users.php example, .php is an implementation detail. If I publish that URI as an endpoint, clients will depend on that specific PHP script. I won't be able to switch to a Java or .NET implementation without changing client code. (Or I'd have to do some really unsavory remappings on the server.)
Related
Let's imagine I have an application where users can either completely, or partially, update their profile details in one part of the app.
PUT for all requests
a PUT (for complete updates) and PATCH (for partial updates) for the requests
In the second scenario I could let the frontend decide whether the full or just a part of the profile was updated. However, this would involve both more code on both the front- and backend.
The first method is on the other hand "easier" to implement. However, is it against certain REST specs / principles?
is it against certain REST specs / principles?
It depends on how you mean it.
If you are thinking "all profile changes are performed by sending a complete replacement of the profile resource via an HTTP PUT", then yes, that is aligned with REST principles (specifically, it respects the uniform interface constraint -- you are using the HTTP PUT message the same way it is used everywhere else, which means that general purpose clients can interface with your resources).
On the other hand, if, instead of the complete replacement, you are considering sending a partial replacement via HTTP PUT, then that is not consistent with REST principles (because you are deviating from the standardized semantics of HTTP PUT).
If HTTP had a standardized "partial PUT" method, using this hypothetical method would be consistent with REST principles.
In other words, REST doesn't really say anything about what messages should be included in the "uniform interface". It just says that everybody should use those messages the same way. It's the HTTP standard that says PUT means complete replacement.
I have an API that will delete a resource (DELETE /resources/{resourceId})
THE above API can only tell us to delete the resource. Now I want to extend the API for other use cases like taking a backup of that resource before deleting or delete other dependant resources of this resource etc.
I want to extend the delete API to this (DELETE /resources/{resourceId}?backupBeforeDelete=true...)
Is the above-mentioned extension API good/recommended?
According to the HTTP Specification, any HTTP message can bear an optional body and/or header part, which means, that you can control in your back-end - what to do (e.g. see what your server receives and conventionally perform your operation), in case of any HTTP Method; however, if you're talking about RESTful API design, DELETE, or any other operation should refer to REST API endpoint resource, which is mapped to controller's DELETE method, and server should then perform the operation, based on the logic in your method.
DELETE /resources/{resourceId} HTTP/1.1
should be OK.
Is the above-mentioned extension API good/recommended?
Probably not.
HTTP is (among other things) an agreement about message semantics: a uniform agreement about what the messages mean.
The basic goal is that, since everybody has the same understanding about what messages mean, we can use a lot of general purpose components (browsers, reverse proxies, etc).
When we start trying to finesse the messages in non standard ways, we lose the benefits of the common interface.
As far as DELETE is concerned, your use case runs into a problem, which is that HTTP does not define a parameterized DELETE.
The usual place to put parameters in an HTTP message is within the message body. Unfortunately...
A payload within a DELETE request message has no defined semantics; sending a payload body on a DELETE request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request
In other words, you can't count on general purpose components doing the right thing here, because the request body is out of bounds.
On the other hand
DELETE /resources/{resourceId}?backupBeforeDelete=true
This has the problem that general purpose components will not recognize that /resources/{resourceId}?backupBeforeDelete=true is the same resource as /resources/{resourceId}. The identifiers for the two are different, and messages sent to one are not understood to affect the other.
The right answer, for your use case, is to change your method token; the correct standard method for what you are trying to do here is POST
POST serves many useful purposes in HTTP, including the general purpose of “this action isn’t worth standardizing.” -- Fielding, 2009
You should use the "real" URI for the resource (the same one that is used in a GET request), and stick any parameters that you need into the payload.
POST /resources/{resourceId}
backupBeforeDelete=true
Assuming you are using POST for other "not worth standardizing" actions, there will need to be enough context in the request that the server can distinguish the different use cases. On the web, we would normally collect the parameters via an HTML form, the usual answer is to include a request token in the body
POST /resources/{resourceId}
action=delete&backupBeforeDelete=true
On the other hand, if you think you are working on an action that is worth standardizing, then the right thing to do is set to defining a new method token with the semantics that you want, and pushing for adoption
MAGIC_NEW_DELETE /resources/{resourceId}
backupBeforeDelete=true
This is, after all, where PATCH comes from; Dusseault et al recognized that patch semantics could be useful for all resources, created a document that described the semantics that they wanted, and shepherded that document through the standardization process.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Can we say Like Rest API we have SOAP, XML RPC, JSON RPC, GRAPH QL I mean Rest is just a type of API?
Is Rest is just a mechanism to share data between applications by using HTTP methods?
REST can share data between applications only with HTTP there is no alternative?
What is the relation between REST & CRUD exactly? we are saying HTTP: POST is CRUD: CREATE my question is HTTP: POST will just post the data to server and it's business logic's headache to CREATE A NEW RESOURCE in the server side but how we all are saying HTTP: POST is nothing but CRUD: CREATE here HTTP: POST is just helping to share the data only right then how it is related to CRUD: CREATE? If that is the case we can create a new resource with HTTP: GET by writing business logic right then why so many sites are saying REST is a mechanism to do CRUD operations... But it should be REST is a mechanism to help in Sharing the data between applications right?!!! (I have doubt similarly with HTTP: DELETE, GET, PUT aswell)
Last but not least... what exactly Representational state transfer mean? could you please answer this with a very low level general answer instead of definition.
Can we say Like Rest API we have SOAP, XML RPC, JSON RPC, GRAPH QL I mean Rest is just a type of API?
REST stands for representation state transfer and is just an architectural style, not a technology or protocol. According to Robert C. "Uncle Bob" Martin an architecture is about intent and the intention behind REST is the decoupling of servers and clients in a distributed system.
REST basically just defines a set of constraints that when followed correctly allow servers to change at any time without breaking clients as clients will just depend on the data given by the server and not on any external data or documentation. REST can be regarded as Web surfing for applications. The main premise should always be that a server teaches a client on how certain things can be achieved.
On the Web a server can i.e. teach a client on the supported properties of a resource through the help of HTML forms. Not only does a client learn that way what a server expects as input, it also learns what HTTP operation should be used to send the data to the server, the endpoint URI to send the request to as well as, usually implicitly given, also the media type to convert the input to, which is application/x-www-form-urlencoded usually by default, which transforms an input like the HTML example below for first and lastname to something like this:
fName=Roman&lName=Vottner
Is Rest is just a mechanism to share data between applications by using HTTP methods?
REST itself is protocol agnostic meaning that it is not tide to HTTP itself and could just work on other transport protocols as well. Though the common perception many developers have is that it is based on HTTP. After all, as Jim Webber put it, HTTP is just a transport layer whose domain is the transfer of files or data over the Web. All HTTP does is to send one document from one machine to the next and any business rules we conclude from sending/receiving a request are just a side effect of the actual document management. It is therefore always better to think of a request as a whole document and the HTTP operation define how the document should be stored on the current machine, especially when such a document is already available, instead of thinking of a service method invocations. The latter one is a typical RPC view.
REST can share data between applications only with HTTP there is no alternative?
HTTP is just a transport layer used in a REST architecture. The architecture cares more on the interaction model between client and servers than on the technical nuances of HTTP. As REST itself is transport protocol agnostic it could be used with other, maybe proprietary protocols as well.
What is the relation between REST & CRUD exactly? we are saying HTTP: POST is CRUD: CREATE my question is HTTP: POST will just post the data to server and it's business logic's headache to CREATE A NEW RESOURCE in the server side but how we all are saying HTTP: POST is nothing but CRUD: CREATE here HTTP: POST is just helping to share the data only right then how it is related to CRUD: CREATE? If that is the case we can create a new resource with HTTP: GET by writing business logic right then why so many sites are saying REST is a mechanism to do CRUD operations... But it should be REST is a mechanism to help in Sharing the data between applications right?!!! (I have doubt similarly with HTTP: DELETE, GET, PUT aswell)
Fielding's thesis on the REST architecture style does not contain the term CRUD at all. The term REST nowadays is heavily misused as people probably didn't bother to actually read the thesis, which admittingly is a bit abstract, and just follow what some people thought may be REST but was actually RPC. Nowadays, if a typical stakeholder talks about REST they usually think of a JSON-based HTTP CRUD-API whose supported endpoints are defined in some Web documentation (Swagger, OpenAPI, ...) and where the HTTP operations for POST (= Create), GET (= Read), PUT (= Update), Delete (= Delete) are supported by default. However, this is unfortunately far from the truth. Though people are just to accustomed with their (wrong) definition and don't see or don't care about the actual problem in their misusage. They don't care about a long-lasting service as in 2-5 years the next-gen technology is here that allows to reduce the number of lines of codes even more and if a new "version" of a service is needed, this usually goes hand in hand with a technology switch also, to justify the "cost of change" somehow.
Last but not least... what exactly Representational state transfer mean? could you please answer this with a very low level general answer instead of definition.
Probably the easiest way to grasp how the interaction in a REST architecture should be is by analyzing typical interaction on the Web, the big cousin of REST. You, as a user, usually start by opening your browser (= client) and typing in some URL in the search bar. Next a Web page is rendered on your screen. Behind the curtain a couple of things happened. Besides the whole connection management and any eventual TLS handshake your browser sent at least one GET request to the target server. On sending the GET request, the client included information on his capabilities, i.e. through the Accept HTTP header. This header is used on the server side to decide which representation format to generate and send to the user. On the Web this might be something like text/html or application/xhtml+xml or if some report is generated might be something like application/pdf or application/vnd.ms-excel or the like, depending which representation format fit the data best.
The representation format itself is now a concrete instance of a document following a certain media type specification. I.e. the HTML forms specification defines the supported elements within a <form>...</form> tag pair as well as describes the semantics of each of the elements. The concrete instance may now define a form as such:
<form action="/action_page.php" method="get">
<label for="fname">First name:</label>
<input type="text" id="fname" name="fname"><br><br>
<label for="lname">Last name:</label>
<input type="text" id="lname" name="lname"><br><br>
<input type="submit" value="Submit">
</form>
which should only use elements and attributes defined within the specification else a receiver of that document might not be able to process it correctly.
This process of telling the server which document types a client supports and allowing the server to chose a fitting representation is called content type negotiation and allows the exchange of arbitrary, type-less documents. Of course, both parties need to support and understand at least one common media type to be able to interact with each other. This is similar to a Frenchmen who does not understand a word of Chinese and a Chinese one that does not understand any word of French who need to communicate (for whatever reason), if both speak English they will be able to communicate.
There are loads of different media types already available that all server different purposes. Depending on your needs an all-purpose one, such as text/html, might be sufficient, others such as application/json or even application/hal+json might though lack support for certain needed elements. Existing media types might not support needed elements. In such a case extending such media types and registering those is probably easier than creating a whole media type from scratch.
REST assumes that a resource (i.e. a remote document) contains some internal data, its state. This state can be represented in many different ways. Think of some monthly sails figures. You might ship the data either in a HTML table, as CSV data, as Excel file, as PDF or yet a different representation format. Regardless of the chosen media type to marshal the data in, the actual data at least should express the same. Instead of questioning which media type you want to support, you should better ask how many different ones you want to support as this just increases the likelihood that other clients may interact with your server also.
edit:
I got all the points except 4th point... Could you please elaborate a bit.. So is it just a mechanism that helps in sharing the data between applications by using HTTP methods? we can say like that?
CRUD is a typical term in the context of persistence, especially with databases. REST or more formally the REST architecture itself treats persistence as internal detail. A typical user usually does not care whether some data is persisted into a DB, a local file system or is kept just in memory. All s/he cares is that the server can process it or for storage services also return the same data that was sent to the server.
In regards to the mapping of CRUD to the HTTP operations, if you take a look at HTML you might see that it only supports POST and GET operations. So anything related to C, U or D are performed with POST which is defined to process the enclosed representation according to the resource's own semantic. With POST you are basically allowed to do anything, even retrieving data if you like.
However, HTTP defines certain properties for the respective operations:
safe
idempotent
cacheable
The first property is a promise to clients that a well-behaved server should not alter the state of a resource upon requesting. The second one is a promise in regards to automatic retry attempts caused by i.e. temporary connection issues. And the latter one allows clients to store responses locally and reuse these instead of requesting the same resource again, if the cached content is "fresh-enough".
GET and HEAD are both safe, idempotent and cacheable, meaning that a client can request resources with such an operation without being hold accountable for any eventual changes. Think of a Web spider that is invoking arbitrary URIs all the time to learn new pages over time. If a GET request on a URI would trigger an order of a Pizza or the like, it is basically the server's fault and not the clients one if a crawler would order Pizzas every time such URIs are called.
PUT and DELETE are only idempotent, which basically allows a client to automatically resend a request in case of a network issue as the outcome of the operation leads to the same result regardless whether the request was processed once or multiple times in a row. Note that this property does not consider changes done by other clients to that resource between a resend. Such data would of course be overwritten.
The remaining operations (POST, PATCH, CONNECT, TRACE) are neither of these.
While technically it is sufficient to only use POST for each request, the above mentioned properties should trigger an inner intention to use them, when appropriate. However, as before mentioned, not the client should chose which operation to perform but the server should tell a client which HTTP operation it should use.
In regards to POST vs. PUT, both operations should behave similar on creating a resource. Both need to add a Location header within the response that teaches a client about the location of the new resource. PUT however, in contrast to POST, replaces the current representation of the requested resource with the one provided in the request body. So it already targets the respective resource while for a POST request the server defines where the resource is created. It is allowed to perform certain sanity checks and also to transform the representation to fit the representation format of the current one. It is also allowed to have side effects, i.e. think of Git where a commit creates a new entry on top of the current branch and moves the HEAD to the new commit.
PUT is probably considered as update operation as the replacement of the document more or less has the effect of an update. If no representation was yet available this just has the effect of the creation (including the location header). In the past, unfortunately, many developers used PUT incorrectly by performing a partial update instead of really replacing the whole document. While the spec states that a partial update could be achieved by overlapping resources (i.e. share parts of the same data in multiple resources), the usage of PATCH, which also is used incorrectly most of the time, may be better from a performance standpoint on larger resources.
Due to POSTs definition, one can do anything with it, though historically a document upload in HTML was triggered through this operation that is basically a resource creation on the server side. That POST is used for many other things as well though is not that important for that CRUD paradigm.
In regards to your concerns about the right terminology, most people, according to my experience, simply do not care. They just want to get the job done ASAP and move on. As roughly 90% of the users seem to understand a pretty similar concept when talking about REST (even though this view is flawed) which usually resolves around JSON, HTTP, CRUD, Swagger/OpenAPI, ... they usually only look for quick-win-solutions and more or less agreement on their thought process.
As HTTP (0.9-1.1) is a plain text protocol sending a GET request is not much different from a POST or PUT request, so technically you can create resources with GET request or support payloads on GET requests (semantics of the payload is undefined according to the spec). That's why I mentioned well-behaved client/servers above. In such a case, however, due to the safe property of GET, if you as a server maintainer violate the HTTP protocol you are the one to blame in case something "unexpected" is happening (crawler is ordering 500 Pizzas).
I'm trying to add a custom HTTP header to Neo4jClient's outgoing Cypher requests, on a per-request basis. What I mean by per-request basis is that the contents of the HTTP header depend on the (user in the) current session.
The idea is that this header will be interpreted by a load balancer so that it always redirects the request to that slave in the Neo4j cluster where the data of the user in the current session is already mapped to memory, leading to performance gains.
For example, I might keep the address of a particular slave in the user's session and add the HTTP header Neo4j-slave: <address> to outgoing requests towards the load balancer. It will then redirect this request to the right slave.
I'm not sure if Neo4jClient is built with this kind of extensibility in mind; from the looks of it, I'm going to have to duplicate a lot of code in non-virtual methods if I don't want to alter existing code.
I've been looking at implementing IHttpClient as an entry point into the GraphClient. After all, I can pass my implementation to GraphClient's constructor and it receives the outgoing HttpRequestMessage so I can modify it along the way) but I think that only works for modifications that only depend on the HttpRequestMessage itself (or on some state somewhere but I want to avoid that).
I've also been looking into ThreadLocals as a means to pass additional arguments to HttpClient#SendAsync but I'm not sure if those even work if asynchronous methods are involved.
Is there a more or less trivial way to hook into Neo4jClient and add this header?
Thanks!
I can't think of a good way to do this currently, however if you add the required extensibility to IGraphClient in a clean way, I'd accept a pull request for this and we can include it in the published library.
Just started my first WCF rest project and would like some help on what are the best practices for using REST.
I have seen a number of tutorials and there seems to be a number of ways to do things...for example if doing a POST, I have seen some tutorials which are setting HttpStatusCodes (OK/Errors etc), and other tutorials where they are just returning strings which contain result of the operation.
At the end of the day, there are 4 operations and surely there must be a guide that says if you are doing a GET, do it this way, etc and with a POST, do this...
Any help would be appreciated.
JD
UPDDATE
Use ASP.NET Web API.
OK I left the comment REST best practices: dont use WCF REST. Just avoid it like a plague and I feel like I have to explain it.
One of the fundamental flaws of the WCF is that it is concerned only with the Payload. For example Foo and Bar are the payloads here.
[OperationContract]
public Foo Do(Bar bar)
{
...
}
This is one of the tenants of WCF so that no matter what the transport is, we get the payload over to you.
But what it ignore is the context/envelope of the call which in many cases transport specific - so a lot of the context get's lost. In fact, HTTP's power lies in its context not payload and back in the earlier versions of WCF, there was no way to get the client's IP Address in netTcpBinding and WCF team were adamant that they cannot provide it. I cannot find the page now but remember reading the comments and the MS guys just said this is not supported.
Using WCF REST, you lose the flexibility of HTTP in expressing yourself clearly (and they had to budge it later) in terms of:
HTTP Status code
HTTP media types
ETag, ...
The new Web API, Glenn Block is working addresses this issue by encapsulating the payload in the context:
public HttpResponse<Foo> Do(HttpRequest<Bar> bar) // PSEUDOCODE
{
...
}
But to my test this is not perfect and I personally prefer to use frameworks such as Nancy or even plain ASP NET MVC to expose web API.
There are some basic rules when using the different HTTP verbs that come from the HTTP specification
GET: This is a pure read operation. Invocation must not cause state change in the service. The response to a GET may be delivered from cache (local, proxy, etc) depending on caching headers
DELETE: Used to delete a resource
There is sometimes some confusion around PUT and POST - which should be used when? To answer that you have to consider idempotency - whether the operation can be repeated without affecting service state - so for example setting a customer's name to a value can be repeated multiple times without further state change; however, if I am incrementing a customer's bank balance this cannot be safely be repeated without further state change on the service. The first is said to be idempotent the second is not
PUT: Non-delete state changes that are idempotent
POST: Non-delete state changes that are not idempotent
REST embraces HTTP - therefore failures should be communicated using HTTP status codes. 200 for success, 201 for creation and the service should return a URI for the new resource using the HTTP location header, 4xx are failures due to the nature of the client request (so can be fixed by the client changing what they are doing), 5xx are server errors that can only be resolved server side
There's something missing here that needs to be said.
WCF Rest may not be able to provide all functionality of REST protocol, but it is able to facilitate REST protocol for existing WCF services. So if you decide to provide some sort of REST support on top of the current SOAP/Named pipe protocol, it's the way to go if the ROI is low.
Hand rolling full blown REST protocol maybe ideal, but not always economical. In 90% of my projects, REST api is an afterthought. Wcf comes in quite handy in that regard.