I am struggling to come with proper REST URL for converting one resource into another. The API method does not do any CRUD operations but instead transform/convert one resource into another type of resource.
I have 2 resources Workunit and Document. I have 3 operations on these two resources
1> trasform Workunit into Document
2> sync Workunit into Document (different logic than transform)
3> transform Document into Workunit
and i have the following urls
[POST] api/v1/workunits/transform
[POST] api/v1/workunits/sync
[POST] api/v1/documents/transform
problem here is action is a part of REST URL
any suggestions?
problem here is action is a part of REST URL
That's not a problem - clients don't depend on the URL for semantics, so you can use any spelling you like; api/v1/4dc233fa-c77c-49d7-b7d6-296ffeb89612 is perfectly satisfactory.
It's analogous to having a verb as a variable name -- it may not be in keeping with your local coding standards, but the compiler doesn't care. So too is it with your URL and the general purpose components that use it.
Choosing a good identifier is like choosing a good name; it requires having a clear understanding of what the thing is. In the case of URI/URL, the thing being identified is a resource, which is to say something that is described by a document. GET/POST/PUT/DELETE and so on are all requests that we do something interesting with the underlying document.
So the usual pattern might be to POST a transform message to the workunit resource, or to POST a transform message to the Document resource, or to POST a sync message to the workunit resource.
Hmm, that last one sounds backwards; if the workunit is unchanged, and the Document is changed by the sync, then you would probably send a sync message to the Document resource.
So if I have /api/v1/documents/1, and I need to sync it, then I would normally use POST /api/v1/documents/1, with the sync semantics described in the message body (on the web, that would usually be an application/x-www-form-urlencoded representation of the sync message).
But it could just as easily be a message that says "Sync documents/1 with workitem/2" that I POST to the todo list for the synchronizer.
We are just putting documents politely into the server's in-tray, so that it can do useful work. The in-tray can have whatever label you want.
It is fine with given situation.
Nevertheless, if I am getting you right it may be a good idea to create two different controllers.
It's up to you but think of changing structure a little bit:
Separate the logic of Transformation and Sync into two different controllers, so you can avoid URL issue.
TransformationController
[Route("api/v1/transformation-controller/")]
TransformationController : ControllerBase
{
[HttpPost("workunits")]
public Task<Response> TransformWorkunits()
{
//logic
}
[HttpPost("documents")]
public Task<Response> TransformDocuments()
{
//logic
}
}
SynchronizationController
[Route("api/v1/synchronization-controller/")]
TransformationController : ControllerBase
{
[HttpPost("workunits")]
public Task<Response> SyncWorkunits()
{
//logic
}
}
So the URLs will be:
[POST] api/v1/transformation-controller/workunits
[POST] api/v1/synchronization-controller/workunits
[POST] api/v1/transformation-controller/documents
So this is a way to avoid verbs and fit REST rules.
If there will be more objects to transform/sync from and into, then you'll have to improve this approach.
Related
Our API's entry point has a rel named "x:reports" (where x is a prefix defined in the HAL representation, by way of a curie - but that's not important right now).
There are several types of reports. Following "x:report" provides a set of these affordances, each with a rel of its own - one rel is named "x:proofofplay". There is a set of lookup values associated with this type of report (and only this type of report). The representation returned by following "x:proofofplay" has a rel to this set of values "x:artwork".
This results in the following hierarchy
reports
proofofplay
artwork
While the "x:artwork" resource is fairly small, it does take some time to fetch it (10 sec). So the client has opted to async load it at app launch.
In order to get the "x:artwork"'s href the client has to follow the links. I'm not sure whether this is a problem. It seems potentially unRESTful, as the client is depending on out-of-band knowledge of the path to this resource. If ever path to artwork changes (highly unlikely) the client will break (though the hrefs themselves can change with impunity).
To see why I'm concerned, the launch function looks like this:
launch: function () {
var me = this;
Rest.getLinksFromEntryPoint(function(links) {
Rest.getLinksFromHref(links["x:reports"].href, function(reportLinks){
Rest.getLinksFromHref(reportLinks["x:proofofplay"].href, function(popLinks){
me.loadArtworks(popLinks["x:artwork"].href);
});
});
});
}
This hard-coding of the path simultaneously makes me think "that's fine - it's based on a published resource model" and "I bet Roy Fielding will be mad at me".
Is this fine, or is there a better way for a client to safely navigate such a hierarchy?
The HAL answer to this is to embed the resources.
Depending a bit on your server-side technology, this should be good enough in your case because you need all the data to be there before the start of the application, and since you worry about doing this sequentially, you might parallelize this on the server.
Your HAL client should ideally treat things in _links and things in _embedded as the same type of thing, with the exception that in the second case, you are also per-populating the HTTP cache for the resources.
Our js-based client does something like this:
var client = new Client(bookMarkUrl);
var resource = await client
.follow('x:reports')
.follow('x:proofofplay')
.follow('x:artwork')
.get();
If any of these intermediate links are specified in _links, we'll follow the links and do GET requests on demand, but if any appeared in _embedded, the request is skipped and the local cache is used. This has the benefit that in the future we can add new things from _links to _embedded, and speeding up clients who don't have to be aware of this change. It's all seamless.
In the future we intend to switch from HAL's _embedded to use HTTP2 Push instead.
I am currently programming a REST service and a website that mostly uses this REST service.
Model:
public class User {
private String realname;
private String username;
private String emailAddress;
private String password;
private Role role;
..
}
View:
One form to update
realname
email address
username
Another form to update the role
And a third form to change the password
.
Focussing on the first view, which pattern would be a good practice?
PUT /user/{userId}
imho not because the form contains only partial data (not role, not password). So it cannot send a whole user object.
PATCH /user/{userId}
may be ok. Is a good way to implement it like:
1) read current user entity
2)
if(source.getRealname() != null) // Check if field was set (partial update)
dest.setRealname(source.getRealname());
.. for all available fields
3) save dest
POST /user/{userId}/generalInformation
as summary for realname, email, username
.
Thank you!
One problem with this approach is that user cannot nullify optional fields since code is not applying the value if (input is empty and value) is null.
This might be ok for password or other required entity field but for example if you have an optional Note field then the user cannot "clean" the field.
Also, if you are using a plain FORM you cannot use PATCH method, only GET or POST.
If you are using Ajax you might be interested in JSON Merge Patch (easier) and/or JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) Patch (most complete); for an overview of the problems that one can find in partial updates and in using PATCH see also this page.
A point is that a form can only send empty or filled value, while a JSON object property can have three states: value (update), null (set null) and no-property (ignore).
An implementation I used with success is ZJSONPATCH
Focussing on the first view, which pattern would be a good practice?
My suggestion starts from a simple idea: how would you do this as web pages in HTML?
You probably start from a page that offers a view of the user, with hyperlinks like "Update profile", "Update role", "Change password". Clicking on update profile would load an html form, maybe with a bunch of default values already filled in. The operator would make changes, then submit the form, which would send a message to an endpoint that knows how to decode the message body and update the model.
The first two steps are "safe" -- the operator isn't proposing any changes. In the last step, the operator is proposing a change, so safe methods would not be appropriate.
HTML, as a hypermedia format, is limited to two methods (GET, POST), so we might see the browser do something like
GET /user/:id
GET /forms/updateGeneralInformation?:id
POST /updates/generalInformation/:id
There are lots of different spellings you can use, depending on how to prefer to organize your resources. The browser doesn't care, because it's just following links.
You have that same flexibility in your API. The first trick in the kit should always be "can I solve this with a new resource?".
Ian S Robinson observed: specialization and innovation depend on an open set. If you restrict yourself to a closed vocabulary of HTTP methods, then the open set you need to innovate needs to lie elsewhere: the RESTful approach is to use an open set of resources.
Update of a profile really does sound like an operation that should be idempotent, so you'd like to use PUT if you can. Is there anything wrong with:
GET /user/:id/generalInformation
PUT /user/:id/generalInformation
It's a write, it's idempotent, it's a complete replacement of the generalInformation resource, so the HTTP spec is happy.
Yes, changing the current representation of multiple resources with a single request is valid HTTP. In fact, this is one of the approaches described by RFC 7231
Partial content updates are possible by targeting a separately identified resource with state that overlaps a portion of the larger resource
If you don't like supporting multiple views of a resource and supporting PUT on each, you can apply the same heuristic ("add more resources") by introducing a command queue to handle changes to the underlying model.
GET /user/:id/generalInformation
PUT /changeRequests/:uuid
Up to you whether you want to represent all change requests as entries in the same collection, or having specialized collections of change requests for subsets of operations. Tomato, tomahto.
So nothing new here I am just trying to get some clarification and cannot seem to find any in other posts.
I am creating a new resource restulfully, say:
/books (POST)
with a body:
{
title: 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe',
author: 'C. S. Lewis'
}
I know that I should return a 201 (Created) with a Location header of the new resource:
Location: /books/12345
The question I cannot seem to answer for myself is what should the server return in the body.
I have often done this type of response:
{
id: 12345,
title: 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe',
author: 'C. S. Lewis'
}
I have done this for a couple reasons:
I have written api for front end frameworks like angularjs. In my
particular case I am using angular resources and I often need just
the id for the resource to locate it. If I did not return the id in
the response body I would need to parse it out of the Location
header.
In a GET of all books I usually return the entire object not just
the id. In this sense my client code does not have to differentiate
where to get the id from (location header or body).
Now I know I am really in the grey area here, but most people are saying that returning the entire resource is 'bad' practice. But what if the server changes/adds information to the resource. It definitely adds the id, but might also add other things like a timestamp. In the case that I do not return the entire resource, is it really better to do a POST, return the id, then have the client perform a GET to get the new resource.
Returning the new object fits with the REST principle of "Uniform Interface - Manipulation of resources through representations." The complete object is the representation of the new state of the object that was created.
There is a really excellent reference for API design, here: Best Practices for Designing a Pragmatic RESTful API
It includes an answer to your question here: Updates & creation should return a resource representation
It says:
To prevent an API consumer from having to hit the API again for an
updated representation, have the API return the updated (or created)
representation as part of the response.
Seems nicely pragmatic to me and it fits in with that REST principle I mentioned above.
Returning the whole object on an update would not seem very relevant, but I can hardly see why returning the whole object when it is created would be a bad practice in a normal use case. This would be useful at least to get the ID easily and to get the timestamps when relevant.
This is actually the default behavior got when scaffolding with Rails.
I really do not see any advantage to returning only the ID and doing a GET request after, to get the data you could have got with your initial POST.
Anyway as long as your API is consistent I think that you should choose the pattern that fits your needs the best. There is not any correct way of how to build a REST API, imo.
After a post I like to return something like this:
Response
.created(URI("/obj/$id"))
.entity(TheNewObj())
.build()
Status 201 - CREATED
Header Location - the location of the new object
Entity - the new object
I'm trying to build a REST service in a Sitecore root. My application start looks like this:
void Application_Start(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
RouteTable.Routes.MapHttpRoute(
name: "DefaultApi", routeTemplate: "api/{controller}/{id}", defaults: new { id = System.Web.Http.RouteParameter.Optional });
}
And my URL looks like this:
http://{mydomain}/api/books
I have the correct controller and all that.
But Sitecore keeps redirecting me to the 404 page. I've added the path to the IgnoreUrlPrefixes node in the web.config, but to no avail. If I had to guess, I'd think that Sitecore's handler is redirecting before my code gets the chance to execute, but I really don't know.
Does anybody have any idea what might be wrong?
Your assessment is correct. You need a processor in the httpRequestBegin pipeline to abort Sitecore's processing. See the SystemWebRoutingResolver in this answer:
Sitecore and ASP.net MVC
It's also described in this article:
http://www.sitecore.net/Community/Technical-Blogs/John-West-Sitecore-Blog/Posts/2010/10/Sitecore-MVC-Crash-Course.aspx
But I'll include the code here as well. :)
public class SystemWebRoutingResolver : Sitecore.Pipelines.HttpRequest.HttpRequestProcessor
{
public override void Process(Sitecore.Pipelines.HttpRequest.HttpRequestArgs args)
{
RouteData routeData = RouteTable.Routes.GetRouteData(new HttpContextWrapper(args.Context));
if (routeData != null)
{
args.AbortPipeline();
}
}
}
Then in your httpRequestBegin configuration:
<processor type="My.SystemWebRoutingResolver, My.Classes" />
You might want to have a look at Sitecore Web Api
It's pretty much the same you are building.
Another option, which I've used to good effect, is to use the content tree, the "star" item, and a sublayout/layout combination dedicated to this purpose:
[siteroot]/API/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
The above path allows you to have anywhere between 1 and 9 segments - if you need more than that, you probably need to rethink your process, IMO. This also retains all of the Sitecore context. Sitecore, when unable to find an item in a folder, attempts to look for the catch-all star item and if present, it renders that item instead of returning a 404.
There are a few ways to go about doing the restful methods and the sublayout (or sublayouts if you want to segregate them by depth to simplify parsing).
You can choose to follow the general "standard" and use GET, PUT, and POST calls to interact with these items, but then you can't use Sitecore Caching without custom backend caching code). Alternately, you can split your API into three different trees:
[siteroot]/API/GET/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
[siteroot]/API/PUT/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
[siteroot]/API/POST/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
This allows caching the GET requests (since GET requests should only retrieve data, not update it). Be sure to use the proper caching scheme, essentially this should cache based on every permutation of the data, user, etc., if you intend to use this in any of those contexts.
If you are going to create multiple sublayouts, I recommend creating a base class that handles general methods for GET, PUT, and POST, and then use those classes as the base for your sublayouts.
In your sublayouts, you simply get the Request object, get the path (and query if you're using queries), split it, and perform your switch case logic just as you would with standard routing. For PUT, use Response.ReadBinary(). For POST use the Request.Form object to get all of the form elements and iterate through them to process the information provided (it may be easiest to put all of your form data into a single JSON object, encapsulated as a string (so .NET sees it as a string and therefore one single property) and then you only have one element in the post to deserialize depending on the POST path the user specified.
Complicated? Yes. Works? Yes. Recommended? Well... if you're in a shared environment (multiple sites) and you don't want this processing happening for EVERY site in the pipeline processor, then this solution works. If you have access to using MVC with Sitecore or have no issues altering the pipeline processor, then that is likely more efficient.
One benefit to the content based method is that the context lifecycle is exactly the same as a standard Sitecore page (logins, etc.), so you've got all the same controls as any other item would provide at that point in the lifecycle. The negative to this is that you have to deal with the entire page lifecycle load before it gets to your code... the pipeline processor can skip a lot of Sitecore's process and just get the data you need directly, making it faster.
you need to have a Pipeline initializer for Routing:
It will be like :
public class Initializer
{
public void Process(PipelineArgs args)
{
RouteCollection route = RouteTable.Routes;
route.MapHttpRoute("DefaultApi", "api/{controller}/{action}/{id}",
new { id = RouteParameter.Optional });
}
}
On config file you will have :
<configuration xmlns:patch="http://www.sitecore.net/xmlconfig/">
<sitecore>
<pipelines>
<initialize>
<processor type="_YourNameSpace.Initializer,_YourAssembly" />
</initialize>
</pipelines>
</sitecore>
</configuration>
Happy coding
I am writing a RESTful service for a customer management system and I am trying to find the best practice for updating records partially. For example, I want the caller to be able to read the full record with a GET request. But for updating it only certain operations on the record are allowed, like change the status from ENABLED to DISABLED. (I have more complex scenarios than this)
I don't want the caller to submit the entire record with just the updated field for security reasons (it also feels like overkill).
Is there a recommended way of constructing the URIs? When reading the REST books RPC style calls seem to be frowned upon.
If the following call returns the full customer record for the customer with the id 123
GET /customer/123
<customer>
{lots of attributes}
<status>ENABLED</status>
{even more attributes}
</customer>
how should I update the status?
POST /customer/123/status
<status>DISABLED</status>
POST /customer/123/changeStatus
DISABLED
...
Update: To augment the question. How does one incorporate 'business logic calls' into a REST api? Is there an agreed way of doing this? Not all of the methods are CRUD by nature. Some are more complex, like 'sendEmailToCustomer(123)', 'mergeCustomers(123, 456)', 'countCustomers()'
POST /customer/123?cmd=sendEmail
POST /cmd/sendEmail?customerId=123
GET /customer/count
You basically have two options:
Use PATCH (but note that you have to define your own media type that specifies what will happen exactly)
Use POST to a sub resource and return 303 See Other with the Location header pointing to the main resource. The intention of the 303 is to tell the client: "I have performed your POST and the effect was that some other resource was updated. See Location header for which resource that was." POST/303 is intended for iterative additions to a resources to build up the state of some main resource and it is a perfect fit for partial updates.
You should use POST for partial updates.
To update fields for customer 123, make a POST to /customer/123.
If you want to update just the status, you could also PUT to /customer/123/status.
Generally, GET requests should not have any side effects, and PUT is for writing/replacing the entire resource.
This follows directly from HTTP, as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_PUT#Request_methods
You should use PATCH for partial updates - either using json-patch documents (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08 or http://www.mnot.net/blog/2012/09/05/patch) or the XML patch framework (see https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5261). In my opinion though, json-patch is the best fit for your kind of business data.
PATCH with JSON/XML patch documents has very strait forward semantics for partial updates. If you start using POST, with modified copies of the original document, for partial updates you soon run into problems where you want missing values (or, rather, null values) to represent either "ignore this property" or "set this property to the empty value" - and that leads down a rabbit hole of hacked solutions that in the end will result in your own kind of patch format.
You can find a more in-depth answer here: http://soabits.blogspot.dk/2013/01/http-put-patch-or-post-partial-updates.html.
I am running into a similar problem. PUT on a sub-resource seems to work when you want to update only a single field. However, sometimes you want to update a bunch of things: Think of a web form representing the resource with option to change some entries. The user's submission of form should not result in a multiple PUTs.
Here are two solution that I can think of:
do a PUT with the entire resource. On the server-side, define the semantics that a PUT with the entire resource ignores all the values that haven't changed.
do a PUT with a partial resource. On the server-side, define the semantics of this to be a merge.
2 is just a bandwidth-optimization of 1. Sometimes 1 is the only option if the resource defines some fields are required fields (think proto buffers).
The problem with both these approaches is how to clear a field. You will have to define a special null value (especially for proto buffers since null values are not defined for proto buffers) that will cause clearing of the field.
Comments?
RFC 7396: JSON Merge Patch (published four years after the question was posted) describes the best practices for a PATCH in terms of the format and processing rules.
In a nutshell, you submit an HTTP PATCH to a target resource with the application/merge-patch+json MIME media type and a body representing only the parts that you want to be changed/added/removed and then follow the below processing rules.
Rules:
If the provided merge patch contains members that do not appear within the target, those members are added.
If the target does contain the member, the value is replaced.
Null values in the merge patch are given special meaning to indicate the removal of existing values in the target.
Example test cases that illustrate the rules above (as seen in the appendix of that RFC):
ORIGINAL PATCH RESULT
--------------------------------------------
{"a":"b"} {"a":"c"} {"a":"c"}
{"a":"b"} {"b":"c"} {"a":"b",
"b":"c"}
{"a":"b"} {"a":null} {}
{"a":"b", {"a":null} {"b":"c"}
"b":"c"}
{"a":["b"]} {"a":"c"} {"a":"c"}
{"a":"c"} {"a":["b"]} {"a":["b"]}
{"a": { {"a": { {"a": {
"b": "c"} "b": "d", "b": "d"
} "c": null} }
} }
{"a": [ {"a": [1]} {"a": [1]}
{"b":"c"}
]
}
["a","b"] ["c","d"] ["c","d"]
{"a":"b"} ["c"] ["c"]
{"a":"foo"} null null
{"a":"foo"} "bar" "bar"
{"e":null} {"a":1} {"e":null,
"a":1}
[1,2] {"a":"b", {"a":"b"}
"c":null}
{} {"a": {"a":
{"bb": {"bb":
{"ccc": {}}}
null}}}
For modifying the status I think a RESTful approach is to use a logical sub-resource which describes the status of the resources. This IMO is pretty useful and clean when you have a reduced set of statuses. It makes your API more expressive without forcing the existing operations for your customer resource.
Example:
POST /customer/active <-- Providing entity in the body a new customer
{
... // attributes here except status
}
The POST service should return the newly created customer with the id:
{
id:123,
... // the other fields here
}
The GET for the created resource would use the resource location:
GET /customer/123/active
A GET /customer/123/inactive should return 404
For the PUT operation, without providing a Json entity it will just update the status
PUT /customer/123/inactive <-- Deactivating an existing customer
Providing an entity will allow you to update the contents of the customer and update the status at the same time.
PUT /customer/123/inactive
{
... // entity fields here except id and status
}
You are creating a conceptual sub-resource for your customer resource. It is also consistent with Roy Fielding's definition of a resource: "...A resource is a conceptual mapping to a set of entities, not the entity that corresponds to the mapping at any particular point in time..." In this case the conceptual mapping is active-customer to customer with status=ACTIVE.
Read operation:
GET /customer/123/active
GET /customer/123/inactive
If you make those calls one right after the other one of them must return status 404, the successful output may not include the status as it is implicit. Of course you can still use GET /customer/123?status=ACTIVE|INACTIVE to query the customer resource directly.
The DELETE operation is interesting as the semantics can be confusing. But you have the option of not publishing that operation for this conceptual resource, or use it in accordance with your business logic.
DELETE /customer/123/active
That one can take your customer to a DELETED/DISABLED status or to the opposite status (ACTIVE/INACTIVE).
Things to add to your augmented question. I think you can often perfectly design more complicated business actions. But you have to give away the method/procedure style of thinking and think more in resources and verbs.
mail sendings
POST /customers/123/mails
payload:
{from: x#x.com, subject: "foo", to: y#y.com}
The implementation of this resource + POST would then send out the mail. if necessary you could then offer something like /customer/123/outbox and then offer resource links to /customer/mails/{mailId}.
customer count
You could handle it like a search resource (including search metadata with paging and num-found info, which gives you the count of customers).
GET /customers
response payload:
{numFound: 1234, paging: {self:..., next:..., previous:...} customer: { ...} ....}
Use PUT for updating incomplete/partial resource.
You can accept jObject as parameter and parse its value to update the resource.
Below is the Java function which you can use as a reference :
public IHttpActionResult Put(int id, JObject partialObject) {
Dictionary < string, string > dictionaryObject = new Dictionary < string, string > ();
foreach(JProperty property in json.Properties()) {
dictionaryObject.Add(property.Name.ToString(), property.Value.ToString());
}
int id = Convert.ToInt32(dictionaryObject["id"]);
DateTime startTime = Convert.ToDateTime(orderInsert["AppointmentDateTime"]);
Boolean isGroup = Convert.ToBoolean(dictionaryObject["IsGroup"]);
//Call function to update resource
update(id, startTime, isGroup);
return Ok(appointmentModelList);
}
Check out http://www.odata.org/
It defines the MERGE method, so in your case it would be something like this:
MERGE /customer/123
<customer>
<status>DISABLED</status>
</customer>
Only the status property is updated and the other values are preserved.
Regarding your Update.
The concept of CRUD I believe has caused some confusion regarding API design. CRUD is a general low level concept for basic operations to perform on data, and HTTP verbs are just request methods (created 21 years ago) that may or may not map to a CRUD operation. In fact, try to find the presence of the CRUD acronym in the HTTP 1.0/1.1 specification.
A very well explained guide that applies a pragmatic convention can be found in the Google cloud platform API documentation. It describes the concepts behind the creation of a resource based API, one that emphasizes a big amount of resources over operations, and includes the use cases that you are describing. Although is a just a convention design for their product, I think it makes a lot of sense.
The base concept here (and one that produces a lot of confusion) is the mapping between "methods" and HTTP verbs. One thing is to define what "operations" (methods) your API will do over which types of resources (for example, get a list of customers, or send an email), and another are the HTTP verbs. There must be a definition of both, the methods and the verbs that you plan to use and a mapping between them.
It also says that, when an operation does not map exactly with a standard method (List, Get, Create, Update, Delete in this case), one may use "Custom methods", like BatchGet, which retrieves several objects based on several object id input, or SendEmail.
It doesn't matter. In terms of REST, you can't do a GET, because it's not cacheable, but it doesn't matter if you use POST or PATCH or PUT or whatever, and it doesn't matter what the URL looks like. If you're doing REST, what matters is that when you get a representation of your resource from the server, that representation is able give the client state transition options.
If your GET response had state transitions, the client just needs to know how to read them, and the server can change them if needed. Here an update is done using POST, but if it was changed to PATCH, or if the URL changes, the client still knows how to make an update:
{
"customer" :
{
},
"operations":
[
"update" :
{
"method": "POST",
"href": "https://server/customer/123/"
}]
}
You could go as far as to list required/optional parameters for the client to give back to you. It depends on the application.
As far as business operations, that might be a different resource linked to from the customer resource. If you want to send an email to the customer, maybe that service is it's own resource that you can POST to, so you might include the following operation in the customer resource:
"email":
{
"method": "POST",
"href": "http://server/emailservice/send?customer=1234"
}
Some good videos, and example of the presenter's REST architecture are these. Stormpath only uses GET/POST/DELETE, which is fine since REST has nothing to do with what operations you use or how URLs should look (except GETs should be cacheable):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pspy1H6A3FM,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WXYw4J4QOU,
http://docs.stormpath.com/rest/quickstart/