We have a lot of different Microservices and we test amongst other things the REST APIs of these different Microservices. These automated REST API tests are not included in the Microservice projects/Repos. Instead we have a testautomation project containing all different tests, like API test and end2end tests, because we want to test everything as a black box.
Now the problem is that there are infinitely combinations of different Microservice versions are possible to test against on a test environment (example: Executing the tests today against Microservice A with version 1.0 and Microservice B with version 2.0 is different to execute the same tests tomorrow against Microservice A with version 1.1 and Microservice B with version 2.1). So, we will need some kind of versioning or tagging our testautomation project or the executed tests, that we are able to identify which combinations of different Microservice versions are valid and which combinations are not valid/working, because e.g. some tests will fail.
Are there any recommendations or experiences to implement and integrate such a versioning/tagging mechanism?
To me the actual problem already lays grounded in your actual design. You state that you maintain some micro-services based on a REST architecture, though in such an environment you don't need to version any endpoint as such to start with. Fielding himself answered how a API in a REST environment should be versioned by simply responding with: Don't.
But why is that? One of the few constraints REST has is HATEOAS (or Hate-Us as I tend to pronounce it) which stands for Hypertext-As-The-Engine-Of-Application-State. This acronym basically just describes the interaction model used in the Web, which will have no preasumption on the content to receive and will only render to the user what it received, including any URIs returned by the server. A browser will trigger a state change upon calling an endpoint targeted by a URI invoked by the user. This might be a link, an image or a form-button (or what not). The core idea here is that the client will be served by the API or server with all the information it needs to take further actions and just present the results to the user.
While browsing the Web page of your preferred manufacturer or vendor you might notice that you'll most likely receive a HTML page containing images, links and further content. The browser itself isn't aware of the product offered on that site though it is sill able to render the result to the user as it knows how to render HTML. If you visit an other page your browser will still be able to render HTML regardless of the content that page offers. Yet if one of these pages is changing in some way your browser will still be able to render the result to you, unless the server responds with a media type that your browser isn't yet aware of, which is though very unlikely on the Web.
What most self-claimed "REST" APIs however return is some arbitrary content specific to a certain API, even though most of these use application/json as representation format. A tailor-made client, that has some knowledge about the API built in, is usually interacting with such an API that however is very unlikely to be able to interact with any other API out there. If something on the API level changes the likelihood of breaking that client without any additional updates of it are therefore high. This is very common to RPC like systems such as SOAP, RMI and CORBA.
Such clients often assume certain endpoints such as /api/users/12345 to return data about a particular user in a most likely JSON representation. The payload is marshalled later on to a object of the underlying programming language probably ignoring any unknown fields and nulling out specified fields that aren't available within the response. Though the fundamental problem here is that clients assume that certain endpoints have a certain types. "Smart" developers will now introduce versioning to the endpoints so that the above mentioned URI will change to /api/v1/users/12345 for a JSON representation containing the old fields while /api/v2/users/12345 will return the new fields. Both versions, however, still describe the same user. Having two different URIs for the same user is already a bad design per se, though usually the versioning of an endpoint does not come alone. Usually the whole API itself is versioned itself so that if you encounter a breaking change you are forced to introduce a whole new API version either copying the other unmodified resources or reusing the same models internally further just exposed under multiple URIs again.
Instead of assuming endpoints to return a certain type with a predefined representation format clients and server should negotiate about the content. HTTP here in particular supports content type negotiation where a client informs a server about its capabilities and the server should respond in a representation format understood by the client. This could be something like application/vnd.acmee-users+json or application/vcard+xml or the like. A client understanding application/vnd.acmee-users.v2+json i.e. might get served by the server the new representation while older clients will still inform the server that they only understand application/vnd.acmee-users+json and get served by such a representation. How the server handles the change internally is not of interest to the client. It is just interested in a representation format it can handle.
Though versioning media-types is also not the preferred way of versioning changes by some architects out there as you fundamentally still describe the same thing just with a bit different syntax or a slightly different semantics. HTML i.e. still ships with application/html (rarely with text/html) but not with application/html_5 or the like. It is designed explicitly in a way to stay backwards compatible. A server generating HTML 5 output will still be rendered on a browser that only supports HTML 4.01 or 2. Maybe not all elements will be rendered the same way as on a HTML 5 compatible browser, but the client won't stop to work unexpectedly.
Mark Nottingham, who is the co-chair in the IETF HTTP working group, stated that the underlying principle of versioning is to not break existing clients. Therefore according to him
This implies that API versioning absolutely cannot be tied to software versioning in any way; doing so will needlessly limit (and often break) your clients, and generally upset people. (Source)
Nottingham even states that the product-token used in User-Agent or Server headers should be taken in preference to any URI or media-type versioning to produce responses specific for certain software versions. With the sheer number of client software out there I'm not the biggest fan of that approach however, as this would require the server to have certain knowledge of the capabilities of HTTP clients and their versions used. For APIs, however, that only have a limited number of clients, probably most of them also under the same control as the API/server, this could be a viable approach though.
As you might see for yourself, in a REST architecture there is no real need to version endpoints itself as client will only handle what they are served with by the API/server. Whether a product-token approach is preferable over a media-type based one might be rather opinionated. The latter one, however, should be based on standardized media-types, registered with IANA. In best case the media-type itself is designed in a way that is backward compatible like HTML, which might avoid introducing new media-types for the same things over and over again.
As Phil Sturgeon mentioned in one of his blog posts
If people are going to design their APIs as RPC with a RESTish facade, they should just commit to being an RPC API and build endpoint for specific clients like they’re literally already doing.
Just be honest about it. Hide the false intention, RPC the lot, document as such, and maybe just use gRPC.
Related
We have one POST API live in production. Now we have a requirement to accept Localization information and proceed with execution accordingly.
e.g. if distanceUnit is "KM" then process all incoming data in Kilometers.
There are three options I could think of to accept localization information.
As a http header i.e. localization: {"distanceUnit": "km"}
As a part of payload itself.
Request parameter.
I like the 1st option as
it doesn't change api contract.
It's easier for other apis to send this info in case they need to be localized in future.
Localization is a part of content negotiation so I don't think it should be part of payload/query parameter.
Any opinions here would be helpful to zero in on 1st or second option.
Thanks.
While accept-language, as indicated by the proposed link Kit posted, may be attempting, this only supports registered languages, maintained by IANA, the standadization gremium of the Web, but not certain generic configuration options out of the box. It may be attempting to default to miles for i.e. Accept-Language: us and use km elsewhere, American scientists may have certain issues with your application then if they want to use km instead of miles. But if this might not be the case, this clearly could be an option you might consider. In regards to custom HTTP headers, I wouldn't recommend using those as the problem with custom HTTP headers in general is that arbitrary generic HTTP clients do not support these which somehow contradicts the idea why one should use a REST architecture.
Let us transfer your problem to the Web domain for a second and see how we usually solve that task there. As REST is basically just a generalized approach to the common way we humans interact with the Web, any concepts used on the Web also apply to a REST architecture. Thus, designing the whole interaction flow as if your application interacts on a typical Web page is just common practice (or at least should be).
On the Web a so called Web form is used to "teach" a Web client (a.k.a. Browser) what data the server expects as input. It not only teaches the client about the respective properties the server either expects or supports for a certain resource but also which HTTP method to use, about the target URI to send the request to and about the media-type to use, which implicitly is often just given as application/x-www-form-urlencoded but may also be multipart/form-data.
The usage of forms and links fall into the HATEOAS constraint where these concpets allow clients to progress through their task, i.e. of buying an item in a Web shop or administrating users in a system, without the need of ever having to consult an external documentation at all. Applications here basically just use the build-in hypermedia capabilities to progress through their tasks. Clients usually follow some kind of predefined processes where the server instructs clients on what they need to do in order to add an item to the shopping cart or on how to add or edit a user while still just operating on a generic HTML document that by itself isn't tailored to the respective task at hands. This approach allows Web clients to basically render all kinds of pages and users to interact with those generic pages. If something in that page representation changes your browser will automatically adept and render the new version on the next request. Hence, the system is able to evolve over time and adapt to changes easily. This is probably one of the core reasons why anyone wants to use a REST architecture basically.
So, back to the topic. On the Web a server would advertise to a client that it supports various localization information with above mentioned forms. A user might be presented a choice or dropdown option where s/he can select the appropriate option. The user usually does not care how this input is transferred to the server or about the internals of the server at all. All s/he cares for is that the data will be available after the request was submitted (in case of adding or updating a resource). This also holds true for application in a REST architecture.
You might see a pattern here. REST and the browsable Web are basically the same thing. The latter though focuses on human interaction while the primer one should allow applications to "surf the Web" and follow allong processes outlined by the server (semi-)automatically. As such it should be clear by now that the same concepts that apply to the browsable Web also apply to REST and applications in that REST architecture.
I like the 1st option as ... it doesn't change api contract
Clients shouldn't bind to a particular API as this creates coupling, which REST tries to avoid at all costs. Instead of directly binding to an API, the Web and as such also REST should use contracts build on hyper media types that define the admissible syntax and semantics of messages exchanged. By abstracting the contract away from the API itself to the media-type a client can support various contracts simultaneously. The generalization of the media-type furthermore allows to i.e. express various different things with the same media type and thus increase the likelihood for reusage and thus a better integration support into application layers.
Supporting various media-types is similar to speaking different languages. By being able to speak various languages you just increase the likelihood that you will be able to communicate with other people (services) out of the box without the need of learning those languages before. A client can tell a server via the Accept header which media-types it is able to "speak( (a.k.a. process) and the server will either respond with either of these or respond with a 406 Not Acceptable. That error response is, as Jim Webber put it, coordination data that at all times tells you whether everything went well or in case of failures gives you feedback on what went wrong.
In order to stay future-proof I therefore would suggest to design the configuration around hypertext enabled media types that support forms, i.e. HTML forms, applicaiton/hal-forms+json or application/ion+json. If in future you need to add further configuration options adding these is just a trivial task. Whether that configuration is exposed as own resource which you just link to, as embedded part within the resource or not return to the client at all is also a choice you have. If the same configuration may be used by multiple resources it would be benefitial to expose it as own resource and then just create a reference from the resource to that configuration but as mentioned these are design decisions you have to make.
If the POST request body is the only place where this is used, and you never have to do GET requests and automatically apply any conversion, my preference would probably go to adding it to the body.
It's nice to have a full document that contains all the information to describe itself, without requiring external out-of-band data to fully interpret its meaning.
You might like to define your schema to always include the unit in relevant parts of the document, for example:
distance: [5, 'km']
or, as you said, do it once at the top of the doc.
We are building set of new REST APIs.
Let's say we have a resource /users with the following fields:
{
id: 1
email: "test#user.com"
}
Clients implement this API and can then update this resource by sending a new resource representation to PUT /users/1.
Now let's say we add a new property name to the model like so:
{
id: 1
email: "test#user.com"
name: "test user"
}
If the models the existing clients are using are to call our API not updated, then calls to PUT /users/1 will remove the new name property since PUT is supposed to replace the resource. I know that the clients could work straight with the raw json to ensure they always receive any new properties that are added in the API, but that is a lot of extra work, and under normal circumstances clients are going to create their own model representations of the API resources on their side. This means that any time any new property is added, all clients need to update the code/models on their side to make sure they aren't accidentally removing properties. This creates unneeded coupling between systems.
As a way to solve this problem, we are considering not implementing PUT operations at all and switching updates to PATCH where properties that aren't passed in are simply not changed. That seems technically correct, but might not be in the spirit of REST. I am also slightly concerned about client support for the PATCH verb.
How are others solving this problem? Was is the best practice here?
You are in a situation where you need some form of API versioning. The most appropriate way is probably using a new media-type every time you make a change.
This way you can support older versions and a PUT would be perfectly legal.
If you don't want this and just stick to PATCH, PATCH is supported everywhere except if you use ancient browsers. Not something to worry about.
Switching from PUT to PATCH will not fix your problem, IMO. The root cause, IMO, is that clients already consider the data being returned for a representation to follow a certain type. According to Fielding
A REST API should never have “typed” resources that are significant to the client.
(Source)
Instead of using typed resources clients should use content-type negotiation to exchange data. Here, media-type formats that are generic enough to gain widespread adoption are for sure beneficial, certain domains may however require a more specific representation format.
Think of a car-vendor Web page where you can retrieve the data from your preferred car. You, as a human, can easily identify that the data depicts a typical car. However, the media-type you most likely received the data in (HTML) does not state by its syntax or the semantics of its elements that the data describes a car, unless some semantic annotation attributes or elements are present, though you might be able to update the data or use the data elsewhere.
This is possible as HTML ships with a rich specification of its elements and attributes, such as Web forms that not only describe the supported or expected input parameters but also the URI where to send the data to, the representation format to use upon sending (implicitly given by application/x-www-form-urlencoded; may be overwritten by the enctype attribute though) or the HTTP method to use, which is fixed to either GET or POST in HTML. Through this, a server is able to teach a client on how a request needs to be built. As a consequence the client does not need to know anything else besides having to understand the HTTP, URI and HTML specifications.
As Web pages are usually filled with all kinds of unrelated stuff, such as adds, styling information or scripts, and the XML(-like) syntax, which is not every ones favourite, as it may increase the size of the actual payload slightly, most so-called "REST" APIs do want to exchange JSON-based documents. While plain JSON is not an ideal representation format, as it does not ship with link-support at all, it is though very popular. Certain additions such as JSON Hyper-Schema (application/schema+json hyper-schema) or JSON Hypertext Application-Language (HAL) (application/hal+json) add support for links and link-relation. These can be used to render data received from the server as-is. However, if you want a response to automatically drive your application state (i.e. to dynamically draw the GUI with the processed data) a more specific representation format is needed, that can be parsed by your client and act accordingly as it understands what the server wants it to do with it (= affordance). If you like to instruct a client on how to build a request support for other media-types such as hal-forms or ion need to be supported. Certain media-types furthermore allow you to use a concept called profiles, that allow you to annotate a resource with a semantic type. HAL JSON i.e. does support something like that where the Content-Type header may now contain a value such as application/hal+json;profile=http://schema.org/Car that hints the media-type processor that the payload follows the definition of the given profile and may thus apply further validity checks.
As the representation format should be generic enough to gain widespread usage, and URIs itself shouldn't hint a client as well what kind of data to expect, an other mechanism needs to be used. Link relation names are basically an annotation for URIs that tell a client about the purpose of a certain link. A pageable collection might return links annotated with first, prev, next and last which are pretty obvious what they do. Other links might be hinted with prefetch, that hint a client that a resource can be loaded right after loading the current resource finished as it is very likely that the client will retrieve this resource next. Such media-types, however, should be either standardized (defined in a proposal or RFC and registerd with IANA) or follow the schema proposed by Web linking, (i.e. as used by Dublin Core). A client that just uses the URI for an invoked link-relation name will still work in case the server changes its URI scheme instead of attempting to parse some parameters from the URI itself.
In regards to de/coupling in a distributed system a certain amount of coupling has to exist otherwise parties wont be able to communicate at all. Though the point here is, the coupling should be based on well-defined and standardized formats that plenty of clients may support instead of exchanging specific representation formats only a very limited number of clients support (in worst case only the own client). Instead of directly coupling to the API and using an undefined JSON-based syntax (maybe with external documentation of the semantics of the respective fields) the coupling should now occur on the media-types parties can use to exchange the format. Here, not the question of which media-type to support should be asked but how many you want to support. The more media-types your client or server supports, the more likely it is to interact with other peers in the distributed system. On the grand-scheme of things, you want a server to be able to server a plethora of clients while a single client should be able to interact with (in best case) every server without the need for constant adoptions.
So, if you really want to decouple clients from servers, you should take a closer look at how the Web actually works and try to mimic its interaction model onto your application layer. As "Uncle Bob" Robert C. Martin mentioned
An architecture is about intent! (Source)
and the intention behind the REST architecture is the decoupling of clients from servers/services. As such, supporting multiple media-types (or defining your own-one that is generic enough to reach widespread adoption), looking up URIs just via their accompanying link-relation names and relying on content-type negotiation as well as relying only on the provided data may help you to achieve the degree of decoupling you are looking for.
All nice and well in theory, but so far every rest api I encountered in my career had predefined contracts that changed over time.
The problem here is, that almost all of those so called "REST APIs" are RPC services at its heart which should not be termed "REST" to start with - this is though a community issue. Usually such APIs ship with external documentation (i.e. Swagger) that just re-introduce the same problems classical RPC solutions, such as CORBA, RMI or SOAP, suffer from. The documentation may be seen as IDL in that process without the strict need for skeleton classes, though most "frameworks" use some kind of typed data classes that will either ignore the recently introduced field (in best case) or totally blow up on invocation.
One of the problems REST suffers from is, that most people haven't read Fieldings thesis and therefore don't see the big picture REST tries to establish but claim to know what REST is and therefore mix up things and call their services RESTful which lead to a situation where REST != REST. The ones pointing out what a REST architecture is and how one might achieve it are called out as dreamers and unworldly when the ones proclaiming the wrong term (RPC over HTTP = REST) continue to do so adding to the confusion of especially the ones just learning the whole matter.
I admit that developing a true REST architecture is really, really hard as it is just too easy to introduce some form of coupling. Hence, a very careful design needs to be done that needs time and also costs money. Money plenty of companies can't or don't want to spend, especially in a domain where new technologies evolve on a regular basis and the ones responsible for developing such solutions often leave the company before the whole process had finished.
Just saying it shouldn’t be ‘typed’ is not really a viable solution
Well, how often did you need to change your browser as it couldn't interact with a Web page? I don't talk about CSS-stuff or browser-specific CSS or JS stuff. How often needed the Web to change in the last 2-3 decades? Similar to the Web, the REST architecture is intended for long-lasting applications for years to come, that supports natural evolution by design. For simple frontend-2-backend systems it is for sure overkill. It starts to shine especially in cases where there are multiple peers not under your control you can interact with.
POST , PUT, PATCH and GET are all different. Idempotent and safety being the key difference makers.
While writing RESTFul APIs , I encountered guidelines on when and where to use one of the HTTP methods. Since I am using Java for the back-end implementation, I can control the behavior of the HTTP methods on the persistent data.
For example , GET v1/book/{id} can be replaced with POST v1/book (with "id" in body) now with that id I can perform a query on db , fetching that particular book. (assuming book with that id already exists).
Similarly , I can achieve the workings of PATCH and PUT with POST itself.
Now, coming to the question , why don't we just use POST instead of GET , PUT and PATCH almost every time, ALMOST, when we can control the idempotent and safety behavior in the back-end?
Or , Is it just a guideline mentioned in RESTFul docs somewhere or stated by Roy fielding and we all are blindly following? Even if the guidelines are so what is the major idea behind them?
https://restfulapi.net/rest-put-vs-post/
https://restful-api-design.readthedocs.io/en/latest/methods.html
https://www.keycdn.com/support/put-vs-post
Above resources just mention either what does all the methods do or their differences. Articles mention the workings as if they were some guidelines , none of the docs online speak about the reason behind them.
None of them says , what if I used POST instead of PUT, PATCH and GET, what would be the side-effects? (as I can control their behaviors in the back-end)
Http methods are designed in the way that each method holds some responsibility. I will say that REST are the standards which are conventions and not the obligation. The convention doesn't stress us to follow the rules but they are designed for our code betterment. You can tweak the things and can use them in your way but that would be a bad idea. Like in this case if you are performing all the three actions with one method it would create great confusion in code (As the simple definition of POST is to create an object and that is what understood by everyone) and also degrade our coding standards.
I strongly discourage to replace three methods with one.
If you do that, you can't say you are "writing RESTFul APIs".
Whoever knows the RESTFul standard, will be confused about the behaviour of your apis.
If you fit the standard, then you will have an easier life.
After all, you have no real benefit in your approach.
HTTP is a transport protocol which as its name suggest is responsible for transfering data such as files or db entries across the wire to or from a remote system. In version 0.9 you basically only had the GET operation at your disposal while in HTTP 1.0 almost all of the current operations were added to the spec.
Each of these methods fulfills its own purpose. POST i.e. does process the payload according to the server's own semantics, whatever they will be. In theory it could be used therefore for retrieving, updating or removing content. Though, to a client it is basically unclear what a server actually does with the payload. There is no guarantee whether invoking a URI with that method is safe (the remote resource being altered) or not. Think of a crawler that is just invoking any URIs it finds and one of the links is an order link or a link where you perform a payment process. Do you really want a crawler to trigger one of your processes? The spec is rather clear that if something like that happens, the client must not made accountable for that. So, if a crawler ordered 10k products as one of your links, did trigger such a process, and the products are created in that process, you can't claim refund from the crawler's maintainer.
In additon to that, a response from a GET operation is cacheable by default. So if you invoke the same resource twice in a certain amount of time, chances are that the resource does not need to be fetched again a second (third, ...) time as it can be reused from the cache. This can reduce the load on the server quite significantly if used propperly.
As you've mentioned Fielding and REST. REST is an architectural style which you should use if you have plenty of different clients connecting to your services that are furthermore not under your control. Plenty of so-called REST APIs aren't adhering to REST as they follow a more simple and pragmatic RPC approach with external documentations such as Swagger and similar. RESTs main focus is on the decoupling of clients from servers which allow the latters to evolve freely without having to fear breaking clients. Clients on the other hand get more robust to changes.
Fielding only added few constraints a REST architecture has to adhere to. One of them is support for caching. Though Fielding later on wrote a well-cited blog-post where he explains what API designers have to consider before calling their API REST. True decoupling can only occur if all of the constraints are followed strictly. If only one clients violates these premises it won't benefit from REST at all.
The main premise in REST is (and should always be): Server teaches clients what they need and clients only use what they are served with. In the browsable Web, the big cousin of REST, a server will teach a client i.e. on what data the server expects via Web Forms through HTML and links are annotated with link-relation names to give the browser some hints on when to invoke that URI. On a Web page a trash bin icon may indicate a delition while a pencil icon may indicate an edit link. Such visual hints are also called affordacne. Such visual hints may not be applicable in machine to machine communication though such affordances may hint on other things they may provide. Think of a stylesheet that is annotated with preload. In HTTP 2 i.e. such a resource could be attempted to be pushed by the server or in HTTP 1.1 the browser could alread load that stylesheet while the page is still parsed to speed things up. In order to gain whitespread knowledge of those meanings, such values should be standardized at IANA. Through custom extensions or certain microformats such as dublin core or the like you may add new relation names that are too specific for common cases but are common to the domain itself.
The same holds true for media-types client and server negotiate about. A general applicable media-type will probably reach wider acceptance than a tailor-made one that is only usable by a single company. The main aim here is to reach a point where the same media-type can be reused for various areas and APIs. REST vision is to have a minimal amount of clients that are able to interact with a plethora of servers or APIs, similar to a browser that is able to interact with almost all Web sites.
Your ultimate goal in REST is that a user is following an interaction protocol you've set up, which could be something similar to following an order process or playing a text game or what not. By giving a client choices it will progress through a certain process which can easily be depicted as state machine. It is following a kind of application-driven protocol by following URIs that caught the clients attention and by returning data that was taught through a form like representation. As, more or less, only standardized representation formats should be used, there is no need for out-of-band information on how to interact with the API necessary.
In reality though, plenty of enterprises don't really care about long-lasting APIs that are free to evolve over the years but in short-term success stories. They usually also don't care that much whether they use the propper HTTP operations at all or stay in bounds with the HTTP spec (i.e. sending payloads with HTTP GET requesst). Their primary intent is to get the job done. Therefore pragmatism usually wins over design and as such plenty of developers follow the way of short success and have to adept their work later on, which is often cumbersome as the API is now the driving factor of their business and therefore they can't change it easily without having to revampt the whole design.
... why don't we just use POST instead of GET , PUT and PATCH almost every time, ALMOST, when we can control the idempotent and safety behavior in the back-end?
A server may know that a request is idempotent, but the client does not. Properties such as safe and idempotency are promisses to the client. Whether the server satisfies these or not is a different story. How should a client know whether a sent payment request reached the server and the response just got lost or the initial request didn't make it to the server at all in case of a temporary connection issue? A PUT requests does guarante idempotency. I.e. you don't want to order the same things twice if you resubmit the same request again in case of a network issue. While the same request could also be sent via POST and the server being smart enough to not process it again, the client doesn't know the server's behavior unless it is externally documented somehwere, which violates REST principles again also somehow. So, to state it differently, such properties are more or less promisses to the client, less to the server.
I read that HATEOAS links are the one that separates a REST API from a normal http API. In that case, does REST need a separate name? I wonder what all this hype about REST API is about. It seems to be just a http method with one extra rule in the response.
Q) What other differences exist?
I read that HATEOAS links are the one that separates a REST API from a normal http API.
That's probably a little bit of an understatement. When Leonard Richardson (2008) described the "technology stack" of the web, he listed:
URI
HTTP
HTML
A way of exploring the latter is to consider how HTML, as a media type, differs from a text document with URI in it. To my mind, the key element is links and forms -- standardized ways of encoding into the representation the semantics of a URI (this is a link to another page, this is an embedded image, this is an embedded script, this is a form...).
Mike Admundsen, 2010:
Hypermedia Types are MIME media types that contain native hyper-linking semantics that induce application flow. For example, HTML is a hypermedia type; XML is not.
Atom Syndication/Atom Publishing is a good demonstration for defining a REST API.
Can you throw some light on what REST actually means and how it differs from normal http?
Have you noticed that websites don't normally use plain text for the representations of the information that they share? It's something of a dead end -- raw text doesn't have any hypermedia semantics built into it, so a generic client can't do anything more interesting than search for sequences that might be URI.
On the other hand, with HTML we have link semantics: we can include references to images, to style sheets, to scripts, as well as linking to other documents. We can describe forms, that allow the creation of parameterized HTTP requests.
Additionally, that means that if some relation shouldn't be used by the client, the server can easily change the representation to remove the link.
Furthermore, the use of the hypermedia representation allows the server to use a richer description of which request message should be sent by the client.
Consider, for example, Google. They can use the form to control whether search requests use GET or POST. They can remove the "I Feel Lucky" option, or arrange that it redirects to the main experience. They can embed additional information in to the fields of the form, to track what is going on. They can choose which URI targets are used in the search results, directing the client to send to Google another request which gets redirected to the actual target, with additional meta data embedded in the query parameters, all without requiring any special coordination with the client used.
For further discussion, see Leonard Richardson's slide deck from QCon 2008, or Phil Sturgeon's REST and Hypermedia in 2019.
Does n't think the client need to read the documentation if the HATEOAS link is a POST API? HATEOAS links will only guide you to an API but will not throw any light on how its request body needs to be filled....GET won't have request body. So, not much or a problem. but POST API?
Sort of - here's Fielding writing in 2008:
REST doesn’t eliminate the need for a clue. What REST does is concentrate that need for prior knowledge into readily standardizable forms.
On the web, the common use case is agents assisting human beings; the humans can resolve certain ambiguities on their own. The result is a separation of responsibilities; the humans decode the domain specific semantics of the messages, the clients determine the right way to describe an interaction as an HTTP request.
If we want to easily replace the human with a machine, then we'll need to invest extra design capital in a message schema that expresses the domain specific semantics as clearly as we express the plumbing.
To me, REST is an ideology you want to aim for if you have a system that should last for years to come which has the freedom to evolve freely without breaking stuff on parts you can't control. This is very similar to the Web where a server can't control browsers directly though browsers are able to cooperate with any changes done to Web site representations returned by the server.
I read that HATEOAS links are the one that separates a REST API from a normal http API. In that case, does REST need a separate name?
REST does basically what its name implies, it transfers the state of a resource representation. If so, we should come up with a new name for such "REST" APIs that are truly RPC in the back, to avoid confusion.
If you read through the Richardson Maturity Model (RMM) you might fall under the impression that links or hypermedia controls as Fowler named it, which are mandatory at Level 3, are the feature that separates REST from normal HTTP interaction. However, Level 3 is just not enough to reach the ultimate goal of decoupling.
Most so called "REST APIs" do put a lot of design effort into pretty URIs in a way to express meaning of the target resource to client developer. They come up with fancy documentation generated by their tooling support, such as Swagger or similar stuff, which the client developer has to follow stringent or they wont be able to interact with their API. Such APIs are RPC though. You won't be able to point the same client that interacts with API A to point to API B now and still work out of the box as they might use completely different endpoints and return different types of data for almost the same named resource endpoint. A client that is attempting to use a bit more of dynamic behavior might learn the type from parsing the endpoint and expect a URI such as .../api/users to return users, when all of a sudden now the API changed its URI structure to something like .../api/entities. What would happen now? Most of these clients would break, a clear hint that the whole interaction model doesn't follow the one outline by a REST architecture.
REST puts emphasis on link relation names that should give clients a stable way of learning the URIs intent by allowing a URI to actually change over time. A URI basically is attached to a link relation name and basically represents an affordance, something that is clear what it does. I.e. the affordance of a button could be that you can press it and something would happen as a result. Or the affordance of a light switch would be that a light goes on or off depending on the toggled state of the light switch.
Link relation names now express such an affordance and are a text-based way to represent something like a trash bin or pencil symbol next to table entry on a Web page were you might figure out that on clicking one will delete an entry from the table while the other symbol allows to edit that entry. Such link relation names should be either standardized, use widely accepted ontologies or use custom link-relation extensions as outlined by RFC 8288 (Web Linking)
It is important to note however, that a URI is just a URI which should not convey a semantic meaning to a client. This does not mean that a URI can't have a semantic meaning to the server or API, but a client should not attempt to deduce one from the URI itself. This is what the link-relation name is for, which provides the infrequently changing part of that relation. An endpoint might be referenced by multiple, different URIs, some of which might use different query parameters used for filtering. According to Fielding each of these URIs represent different resources:
The definition of resource in REST is based on a simple premise: identifiers should change as infrequently as possible. Because the Web uses embedded identifiers rather than link servers, authors need an identifier that closely matches the semantics they intend by a hypermedia reference, allowing the reference to remain static even though the result of accessing that reference may change over time. REST accomplishes this by defining a resource to be the semantics of what the author intends to identify, rather than the value corresponding to those semantics at the time the reference is created. It is then left to the author to ensure that the identifier chosen for a reference does indeed identify the intended semantics. (Source 6.2.1)
As URIs are used for caching results, they basically represent the keys used for caching the response payload. As such, it gets obvious that on adding additional query parameters to URIs used in GET requests, you end up bypassing caches as the key is not stored in the cache yet and therefore get the result of a different resource, even though it might be identical (also in response representation) as the URI without that additional parameter.
I wonder what all this hype about REST API is about. It seems to be just a http method with one extra rule in the response.
In short, this is what those self- or marketing-termed pseudo "REST APIs" do convey and many people seem to understand.
The hype for "REST" arose from the inconveniences put onto developers on interacting with other interop-solutions such as Corba, RMI or SOAP where often partly-commercial third-party libraries and frameworks had to be used in order to interact with such systems. Most languages supported HTTP both as client and server out of the box removing the requirement for external libraries or frameworks per se. In addition to that, RPC based solution usually require certain stub- or skeleton-classes to be generated first, which was usually done by the build pipeline automatically. Upon updates of the IDL, such as WSDL linking or including XSD schemata, the whole stub-generation needed to be redone and the whole code needed to looked through in order to spot whether a breaking change was added or not. Usually no obvious changelog was available which made changing or updating such stuff a pain in the ...
In those pseudo "REST" APIs plain JSON is now pretty much the de facto standard, avoiding the step of generating stub classes and the hazzle of analyzing the own code to see whether some of the forced changes had a negative impact on the system. Most of those APIs use some sort of URI based versioning allowing a developer to see based on the URI whether something breaking was introduced or not, mimicking some kind of semantic versioning.
The problem with those solution though is, that not the response representation format itself is versioned but the whole API itself leading to common issues when only a change on a part of the API should be introduced as now the whole API's version needs to be bumped. In addition to that, to URIs such as .../api/v1/users/1234 and .../api/v2/users/1234 may represent the same user and thus the same resource though are in fact different by nature as the URI is different.
Q) What other differences exist?
While REST is just an architecture model that can't force you to implement it stringent, you simply will not benefit from its properties if you ignore some of its constraints. As mentioned above, HATEOAS support is therefore not yet enough to really decouple all clients from an API and thus allow to benefit from the REST architecture.
RMM unfortunately does not talk about media types at all. A media type basically specifies how a received payload should be processed and defines the semantics and constraints of each of the elements used within that payload. I.e. if you look at text/html registered in IANA's media type registry, you can see that it points to the published specification, which always references the most recent version of HTML. HTML is designed in a way to stay backwards compatible so no special versioning stuff is required.
HTML provides, IMO, two important things:
semi-structured content
form support
The former one allows to structure data, giving certain segments or elements the possibility to express different semantics defined in the media type. I.e. a browser will handle an image differently than a div element or an article element. A crawler might favor links and content contained in an article element and ignore script and image elements completely. Based on the existence or absence of certain elements even certain processing differences may occur.
Including support for forms is a very important thing in REST actually as this is the feature which allows a server to teach a client on what a server needs as input. Most so called "REST APIs" just force a developer to go through their documentation, which might be outdated, incorrect or incomplete, and send data to a predefined endpoint according to the documentation. In case of outdated or incomplete documentation, how should a client ever be able to send data to the server? Moreover, a server might never be able to change as basically the documentation is now the truth and the API has to align with the documentation.
Unfortunately, form-support is still a bit in its infancy. Besides HTML, which provides <form>...</form>, you have a couple of JSON based form attempts such as hal-forms, halo-json (halform), Ion or hydra. None of these have yet wide library or framework support yet as some of these form representations still have not finalized their specification on how to support forms more effectively.
Other media-types, unfortunately, might not use semi-structured content or provide support for forms that teach a client on the needs of a server, though they are still valuable to REST in general. First, through Web linking link support can be added to media types that do not naturally support those. Second, the data itself does not really need to be text-based at all in order for an application to use it further. I.e. pictures an videos usually are encoded and byte based anyways still a client can present them to users.
The main point about media-types though is, as Fielding already pointed out in one of his cited blog posts, is, that representations shouldn't be confused with types. Fielding stated that:
A REST API should never have “typed” resources that are significant to the client. Specification authors may use resource types for describing server implementation behind the interface, but those types must be irrelevant and invisible to the client. The only types that are significant to a client are the current representation’s media type and standardized relation names.
Jørn Wildt explained in an excellent blog post what a "typed" resource is and why a REST architecture shouldn't use such types. Basically, to sum the blog post up, a client expecting a ../api/users endpoint to return a pre-assumed data payload might break if the server adds additional, unexpected fields, renames existing fields or leave out expected fields. This coupling can be avoided by using simple content-type negotiation where a client informs a server on which capabilities the client supports and the client will chose the representation that best fits the target resource. If the server can't support the client with a representation the client supports the server should respond with a failure (or a default representation) the client might log to inform the user.
This in essence is exactly what the name REST stands for, the transfer of a resource's state representation where the representation may differ depending on the representation format defined by the selected media type. While HATEOAS may be one of the most obvious changes between REST and a non-REST based HTTP solution, this for sure is not the only factor that makes up a payload in REST. I hope I could shed some light on the decoupling intention and that a server should teach clients what the server expects through forms and that the affordance of URIs is captured by link-relation names. All these tiny aspects in sum make up REST, and you will only benefit from REST, unfortunately, if you respect all of its constraints and not only those that are either easy to obtain or what you have the mood for implementing.
When should I choose one over the other?
The way I see it API wrappers are so much simpler to use but I feel like there's something I'm not seeing, so can you enlighten me?
REST is a software design to decouple clients from APIs though it is often misunderstood as simple URI design thingy due to the fact that it is often based on HTTP.
Advantages of using APIs and clients that support REST is clearly, that clients are not coupled to any API in particular and are therefore tolerant to changes done on the server side like moving resources to different endpoints. Like a browser is able to present content of a sheer infinite number of web pages, true RESTful clients should behave identical and be able to communicate with any API that supports REST. It may learn on the fly how to deal with new content type by looking up some processing routines dynamically (similar to plugins of certain applications) or fallback to a default handling (reporting errors or presenting unknown data as plain text).
An API wrapper is often used to create clients that are limited to a certain API only. This simplifies development as the client can contain certain logic needed for interaction with the API like en/de-coding messages sent to or received from the service, list all available operations and similar stuff. Often URI endpoints are also either injected through properties or hardcoded into the application. Also, the content type is often limited to XML or JSON and the rules on how to treat responses are hardcoded into the client directly. All these steps however tightly couple the client to the API. In case the API changes (or is enriched by further endpoints) the API wrapper has to be updated and shipped to each consumer otherwise users either won't be able to use the API or make use of the latest features.
API wrapper are often tailor made for the usage of the API and are also often much simpler to implement. They, however, also require constant updating in cases the API itself is changing as the wrapper is incapable of handling these changes itself. REST clients on the other hand are far more complicate to develop as the client somehow has to know (or learn) the semantical meaning of a certain response and has to infer somehow how to act upon received responses. Some parts of it are yet an active field of research (at least in automated processing).
As you asked on when to use which: In cases where you have to create an all-purpose client, a REST client is for sure the right thing to do. However, identifying the correct semantical treatment will be the true chanllenge for these clients IMO. In cases where you only need to provide a client frontend for customers (or users) and not much change is expected on the API itself, a wrapper may be much easier to implement. However, please don't call such a client RESTful!