I'm new in this technology, so please excuse me for the question.
I have a WSO2 ESB configured on server. I managed to configure different Proxy Services one by one, the thing i'd like to do, since they are all child of one service to put them into one proxy and use it with parameters.
Something like:
http://localhost:8290/services/URL1/{id}
http://localhost:8290/services/URL2/{id}
I can't find comprehensive explanation on how to do this.
Could someone provide me with the proxy source example with more then one endpoint defined there, if it is possible.
Thanks a lot in advance,
Liudmila
You can use REST apis , there you can use url mapping and url templates as you want.
check the document[1]
https://docs.wso2.com/display/ESB470/Getting+Started+with+REST+APIs#GettingStartedwithRESTAPIs-URLmappings
I want to reach the data saved in a mysql server for an Android phone. I thought about to connect directly the phone to the mysql but it is a bad practice because someone can get the user/pass of the DB.
However the REST architecture maybe it's a solution for my problem. I found the toolkit GWT but I don't know if it's the best way to solve my problem and what I need to use the GWT.
And I got 2 questions basically:
The GWT is good for my purpose?
Need a Tomcat server for example to set the GWT code?
One annotation, the data is for an app Android, there is no HTML interface .
Nowadays I'm working at localhost. Thanks for the answers.
As far as I understand, you want to implement a RESTful service (Web API). GWT targets the Web UI to be able to build it using Java and compile it into JavaScript. I think that it's not what you expect.
Here is a link that provides you hints about concepts of REST: https://templth.wordpress.com/2014/12/15/designing-a-web-api/. It will describe you what is a RESTful service and how to design it.
There are several technologies to build RESTful services (server-side frameworks). I can list two of them:
Restlet (see this link http://restlet.com/technical-resources/restlet-framework/tutorials/2.3 and http://restlet.com/products/restlet-framework/)
JAX-RS and its implementations (Restlet, Jersey, EasyRest). See this link for example: https://templth.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/getting-started-with-resteasy/.
Hope it helps you,
Thierry
I'm writing a RESTfull service using jersey and Spring 3 (including spring-security), and trying to figure out how to implement authentication and authorization.
I'm new both to jersey and to Spring so it's all a bit confusing...
Users and their roles are defined in DB. (and not defined in the web.xml or in tomcat-users)
Here are my thoughts about the Authorization part:
Since my service shouldn't necessarily serve web-apps, the authorization should be done on the REST resources (and not on pages) - how do i do this? i saw there's #RolesAllowed annotation but it seems too simple, i need more logic. i think i have to somehow activate spring security from there to use the authorization capabilities they offer.
Any suggestions as to how to do this?
For the Authentication part it seems i should use spring security's AuthenticationManager, and SessionManagement but i'm not sure how to connect it to the REST API:
1. how the API that gets the authentication request should look like?
2. if Spring handles my sessions, how can i add the authorization on my REST resources?
I'd really appreciate if you could help me clear up things...
Thanks!
Sorry, but if you're at that early stage with your Spring Security know-how I must suggest you work through the excellent tutorial first. I'm sure your questions will be answered automatically and you'll learn a lot of valuable stuff along the way.
Is there a good reason to deploy or consume a SOAP service without using a WSDL "file"?
Explanation:
I'm in a situation where a 3rd-party has created a SOAP service that does not follow the very WSDL file they have also created. I think I am forced to ignore the WSDL file in order to consume this service. Therefore I'm researching how to do this.
What I am really wondering is why it is even possible to do this? What is the intention?
Is it designed so that we can use poor services made by poor programmers? Surely there must be a better reason. I almost wish it wasn't possible. Then I could demand they write it properly.
The WSDL is supposed to be a public document that describes the SOAP service, so describes the signatures of all the methods available in the service.
Of course there may be service providers who want to expose a service to certain consumers, but who don't want to make the signature of the service public, if only to make it a little bit harder for people they don't want using the service to find it or attempt to use it. The signature of the services might expose some private information about the schema of their data for example.
But I don't see any excuse for writing a WSDL that doesn't match the service. I would worry that if they can't get the WSDL right what is the quality of the service going to be like?
To answer the other question yes you can consume the service without the WSDL. If you are using Visual Studio for example you could have VS build a proxy for you based on the incorrect WSDL and then tweak it to match the correct service method signatures. You just need to make sure your data contracts and method contracts in your proxy match the actual service data contracts and method contracts.
I mean, really, what is the point of SOAP?
Web services have been around for a while, and for a while it seemed that the terms 'SOAP' and 'Web service' were largely interchangeable. However SOAP always seemed unwieldy and massively overcomplicated to me.
Then REST came along, and suddenly web services made sense.
As Joel Spolsky says, give a programmer a REST URL, and they can start playing with the service right away, figuring it out.
SOAP is obfuscated behind WSDLs and massively verbose XML, and despite being web based, you can't do anything as simple as access a SOAP service with a web browser.
So the essence of my question is:
Are there any good reasons to ever choose SOAP over REST?
Are you working with SOAP now? Would it be better if the interface was REST?
Am I wrong?
As Joel Spolsky says, give a programmer a REST URL, and they can start playing with the service right away, figuring it out.
Whereas if the service had a well specified, machine readable contract, then the programmer wouldn't have to waste any time figuring it out.
(not that WSDL/SOAP is necessarily an example of good implementation of a well specified contract, but that was the point of WSDL)
Originally, SOAP was a simple protocol which allowed you to add a header to a message, and had a standardized mapping of object instances to XML structures. Putting the handling metadata in the message simplified the client code, and meant you could very simply persist and queue messages.
I never needed the header processing details when I built SOAP services back in 2001. This was pre-WSDL, and it was then normal to use GET for getting information and queries (no different to most applications which claim to be REST; REST has more in terms of using hyperlinks for service discovery) and POST with a SOAP payload to perform actions. Those actions which created resources would return the URL of the created resource to the client, and the client could then GET the resource. I think it's the fact that WSDL made it easy to think only in terms of RPC rather than actions which create resources which made SOAP lose the plot.
The way I see it, SOAP might be more "flexible", but as a result it's just way too complicated (you mentioned the WSDL, which is always a stumbling block to me personally).
I get REST. It's simple. The only downside I might see is that you are limiting yourself to those 4 basic actions against a single resource, which might not exactly fit the way you view your data.
The topic is well-discussed in Why is soap considered to be thick.
While doing some research to understand some of the answers here (especially John Saunders') I found this post http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/xml/soap/simple
SOAP is more insane than I thought...
The point of WSDL was auto-discovery. The idea was that you wouldn't have to write client code, it would be auto-generated.
BTW. next step beyond WSDL are Semantic Web Services.
If you don't need the features of the WS-* series of protocols; if you don't need self-describing services; if your service cannot be completely described as resources, as defined by the HTTP protocol; if you don't like having to author XML for every interaction with the service, and parse it afterwards; then you need SOAP.
Otherwise, sure, use REST.
There's been some question about the value of a self-describing service. My imagination fails me when it comes to imagining how anyone could fail to understand this. That's on me. Still, I have to think that anyone who has ever used a service much more complicated than "Hello, world" would know why it is valuable to have someone else write the code that accepts parameters, creates the XML to send to the service, sends it, receives the response, then turns that back into objects.
Now, I suppose this might not be necessary when using a RESTful service; at least not with a RESTful service that does not process complex objects. Even with a relatively simple service like http://www.earthtools.org/webservices.htm (which I've used as an example of calling a RESTful service), one benefits from understanding the structure of the returned data. Even the above service provides an XML Schema - it unfortunately doesn't describe the entire response. Given that schema one still has to manually process the XML, or else use a tool to produce serializable classes from the schema.
All of this happens for you when the service is described in a WSDL, and you use a tool like "Add Service Reference" in Visual Studio, or the svcutil.exe program, or I-forget-what-the-command-is-in-Eclipse.
If you want examples, start with the EarthTools services, and go on to any other services with more complicated messaging.
BTW, another thing that requires self-description is description of the messaging patterns and protocols supported by the service. Perhaps that's not required when the only choices are HTTP verbs over HTTP or HTTPS. Life gets more complicated if you're using WS-Security and friends.
I find that SOAP fits in most appropriately when there is a high probability that a service will be consumed by corporate off the shelf (COTS) software. Because of the well specified contract employed by SOAP/WSDL most COTS packages have built in functionality for consuming such services. This can make it easy for BPM/workflow tools etc. to simply consume defined services without customization. Beyond that service use case REST tends to be my goto web service implementation for applications.
Well it appears now that the WSI agree that SOAP no longer has a point as they have announced they will cease to exist as an independent entity.
Interesting article about the announcement and some commentary here: http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/the-end-of-the-road-for-web-services/index.htm
Edited to be completely accurate in response to John Saunders.
I think SOAP appeals to the Java and .net crowd who may be more familiar with the old CORBA and COM and less familiar with internet technologies.
REST also has one major drawback: there is very little guidance on how to actually implement such a system. You will find significant variations on how many of the public RESTful APIs have been designed. In fact many violate key aspects of REST (such as using GET for manipulation or POST for retrieval) and there are disagreements over fundamental usage (POST/GET vs POST/GET/PUT/DELETE).
Am I wrong?
"You're not wrong, Walter, you're just... :)"
Are there any good reasons to ever choose SOAP over REST?
SOAP, to my understanding adheres to a contract, thus can be type checked.
SOAP is a lightweight XML based structured protocol specification to be used in the implementation of services . It is used for exchanging
structured information in a decentralized, distributed environment. SOAP uses XML technologies for exchanging of information over any transport layer protocol.
It is independent of any particular programming model and other implementation specific semantics. Learn More about XML
SOAP Messaging Framework
XML-based messaging framework that is
1) Extensible : Simplicity remains one of SOAP's primary design goals. SOAP defines a communication framework that allows for features such as security, routing, and
reliability to be added later as layered extensions
2) Inter operable : SOAP can be used over any transport protocol such as TCP, HTTP, SMTP. SOAP provides an explicit binding today for HTTP.
3) Independent : SOAP allows for any programming model and is not tied to Remote procedure call(RPC). SOAP defines a model for processing individual, one-way messages.
SOAP also allows for any number of message exchange patterns (MEPs) .Learn more about SOAP