I'm contemplating creating a RESTful API to monitor a remote instrument - for purposes of discussion, assume the remote instrument is a voltmeter.
One important function of the API is to read the voltage as measured by the instrument at any time.
My question: what, if any, is the appropriate HTTP verb for reading a value that can change from one reading to the next?
As I understand it, GET would be wrong, since servers may assume the value is idempotent and thus cache the returned value.
But the other usual choices -- PUT and POST -- appear to be used to create and update values and not return values.
I can think of a few approaches:
Use GET with a Cache-Control: no-cache in the header
Use (or abuse) POST and have it return a value
Don't use RESTful design for this kind of application
What is considered the correct approach?
My question: what, if any, is the appropriate HTTP verb for reading a value that can change from one reading to the next?
GET
The GET method requests transfer of a current selected representation for the target resource.
The semantics of caching are described in RFC 7234; in particular, you can use the Cache-Control header to provide to intermediary components the metadata they need to cache the responses correctly. The list of cache control directives includes no-cache, if you always want the intermediary components to check with the origin before reusing a value.
This is the main point of the uniform interface - because resources uniformly implement a consistent set of semantics, clients and intermediaries can rely upon those semantics to contribute without needing to know the specific details of the resource, it's implementation, or it's representation.
The central feature that distinguishes the REST architectural style from other network-based styles is its emphasis on a uniform interface between components (Figure 5-6). By applying the software engineering principle of generality to the component interface, the overall system architecture is simplified and the visibility of interactions is improved. Implementations are decoupled from the services they provide, which encourages independent evolvability. The trade-off, though, is that a uniform interface degrades efficiency, since information is transferred in a standardized form rather than one which is specific to an application's needs. The REST interface is designed to be efficient for large-grain hypermedia data transfer, optimizing for the common case of the Web, but resulting in an interface that is not optimal for other forms of architectural interaction.
Use GET as thats implicit meaning when you want to only fetch some data from a server.
As you said correctly you need to have right cache mechanism (i said it purposefully as you may just set cache max age 0 but you might also need cache at any later point) implimented to make sure you get fresh data in the response.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 months ago.
Improve this question
I figured I'd post here to get some ideas/feedback on something I've come up against recently. The API I've developed has validation on an identifier that's passed through as a path parameter:
e.g. /resource/resource_identifier
There are some specific business rules as to what makes an idenfier valid and my API has validation which enforces these rules and returns a 400 when that's violated.
Now the reason I'm writing this is that I've been doing this sort of thing in every REST (ish) API I've ever written. It's kind of ingrained in me now but ecently I've been told that this is 'bad' and that it breaks encapsulation. Furthermore, it does this by forcing a consumer to have knowledge about the format of an identifier. I'm told that I should be returning a 404 instead and simply accept anything as an idenfier.
We've had some pretty heated debates about this and what encapsulation actually means in the context of REST. I've found numerous definitions but they aren't specific. As with any REST contention it's hard to substantiate an argument for either.
If StackOverflow would allow me, I'd like to try and gain a concensus on this and why APIs like Spotify for example, use 400 in this scenario.
I've been doing this sort of thing in every REST (ish) API I've ever written. It's kind of ingrained in me now but recently I've been told that this is 'bad'
In the context of HTTP, it is an "anti-pattern", yes.
I'm told that I should be returning a 404 instead
And that is the right pattern when you want the advantages of responding like a general purpose web server.
Here's the point: if you want general purpose components in the HTTP application to be able to do sensible things with your response messages, then you need to provide them with the appropriate meta data.
In the case of a target resource identifier that satisfies the request-target production rules defined in RFC 9112 but is otherwise unsatisfactory; you can choose any response semantics you want (400? 403? 404? 499? 200?).
But if you choose 404, then general purpose components will know that the response is an error that can be re-used for other requests (under appropriate conditions - see RFC 9111).
why APIs like Spotify for example, use 400 in this scenario.
Remember: engineering is about trade offs.
The benefits of caching may not outweigh more cost effective request processing, or more efficient incident analysis, or ....
It's also possible that it's just habit - it's done that way because that's the way that they have always done it; or because they were taught it as a "best practice", or whatever. One of the engineering trade offs we need to consider is whether or not to invest in analyzing a trade off!
An imperfect system that ships earns more market share than a perfect solution that doesn't.
While it may sound natural to expose the resource internal ID as ID used in the URI, remember that the whole URI itself is the identifier of a resource and not only the last bit of the URI. Clients are usually also not interested in the characters that form the URI (or at least they shouldn't care about it) but only in the state they receive upon requesting that from the API/server.
Further, if you think long-term, which should be the reason why you want to build your design on top of a REST architecture, is there a chance that the internal identifier of a resource could ever change? If so, introducing an indirection could make more sense then i.e. by using UUIDs instead of product IDs in the URI and then have a further table/collection to perform a mapping from UUID to domain object ID. Think of a resource that exposes some data of a product. It may sound like a good idea to use the product ID at the end of the URI as they identify the product in your domain model clearly. But what happens if you company undergoes a merge with an other company that happens to have an overlap on product but then uses different identifiers than you? I've seen such cases in reality, unfortunately, and almost all of them wanted to avoid change for their clients and so had to support multiple URIs for the same products in the end.
This is exactly why Mike Amundsen said
... your data model is not your object model is not your resource model ... (Source)
REST is full of such indirection mechanisms to allow such systems to avoid coupling. I.e. besides above mentioned mechanism, you also have link-relations to allow servers to switch URIs when needed while clients can still lookup the URI via the exposed relation name, or its focus on negotiated media types and its representation formats rather than forcing clients to speak their API-specific RPC-like, plain-JSON slang.
Jim Webber further coined the term domain application protocol to describe that HTTP is an application protocol for exchanging documents and any business rules we infer are just side effects of the actual document management performed by HTTP. So all we do in "REST" is basically to send documents back and forth and infer some business logic to act upon receiving certain documents.
In regards to encapsulation, this isn't the scope of REST nor HTTP. What data you return depends on your business needs and/or on the capabilities of the representation formats exchanged. If a certain media-type isn't able to express a certain capability, providing such data to clients might not make much sense.
In general, I'd would recommend not to use domain internal IDs as part of URIs for the above mentioned reasons. Usually that information should be part of the exchanged payload to give users/customers the option to refer to that resources on other channels like e/mail, telephone, ... Of course, that depends on the resource and its purpose at hand. As a user I'd prefer to refer to myself with my full name rather than some internal user- or customer ID or the like.
edit: sorry, missed the validation aspect ...
If you expect user/client input on the server/API side, you should always validate the data before starting to process it. Usually though, URIs are provided by the server and might only trigger business activities if the URI requested matches one of your defined rules. In general, most frameworks will respond with 400 Bad Request responses when they couldn't map the URI to a concrete action, giving the client a chance to correct its mistake and reissue the updated request. As URIs shouldn't be generated or altered by clients anyways, validating such parameters might be unnecessary overhead unless they might introduce security risks. Here it might be a better approach then to toughen-up the mapping rules of URIs to actions then and let those frameworks respond with a 400 message when clients use stuff they aren't supposed to.
Encapsulation makes sense when we want to hide data and implementation behind an interface. Here we want to expose the structure of the data, because it is for communication, not for storage and the service certainly needs this communication in order to function. Validation of data is a very basic concept, because it makes the service reliable and because is protects against hacking attempts. The id here is a parameter and checking its structure is just parameter validation, which should return 400 if failed. So this is not restricted to the body of the request, the problem can be anywhere in the HTTP message as you can read below. Another argument against 404 that the requested resource cannot possibly exist, because we are talking about a malformed id and so a malformed URI. It is very important to validate every user input, because a malformed parameter can be used for injections e.g. for SQL injection if it is not validated.
The HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) 400 Bad Request response status
code indicates that the server cannot or will not process the request
due to something that is perceived to be a client error (for example,
malformed request syntax, invalid request message framing, or
deceptive request routing).
vs
The HTTP 404 Not Found response status code indicates that the server
cannot find the requested resource. Links that lead to a 404 page are
often called broken or dead links and can be subject to link rot.
A 404 status code only indicates that the resource is missing: not
whether the absence is temporary or permanent. If a resource is
permanently removed, use the 410 (Gone) status instead.
In the case of REST we describe the interface using the HTTP protocol, URI standard, MIME types, etc. instead of the actual programming language, because they are language independent standards. As of your specific case it would be nice to check the uniform interface constraints including the HATEOAS constraint, because if your service makes the URIs as it should, then it is clear that a malformed id is something malicious. As of Spotify and other APIs, 99% of them are not REST APIs, maybe REST-ish. Read the Fielding dissertation and standards instead of trying to figure it out based on SO answers and examples. So this a classic RTFM situation.
In the context of REST a very simple example of data hiding is storing a number something like:
PUT /x {"value": "111"} "content-type:application/vnd.example.binary+json"
GET /x "accept:application/vnd.example.decimal+json" -> {"value": 7}
Here we don't expose how we store the data. We just send the binary and decimal representations of it. This is called data hiding. In the case of id it does not make sense to have an external id and convert it to an internal id, it is why you use the same in your database, but it is fine to check if its structure is valid. Normally you validate it and convert it into a DTO.
Implementation hiding is more complicated in this context, it is sort of avoiding micromanagement with the service and rather implement new features if it happens frequently. It might involve consumer surveys about what features they need and checking logs and figuring out why certain consumers send way too many messages and how to merge them into a single one. For example we have a math service:
PUT /x 7
PUT /y 8
PUT /z 9
PUT /s 0
PATCH /s {"add": "x"}
PATCH /s {"add": "y"}
PATCH /s {"add": "z"}
GET /s -> 24
vs
POST /expression {"sum": [7,8,9]} -> 24
If you want to translate between structured programming, OOP and REST, then it is something like this:
Number countCartTotal(CartId cartId);
<=>
interface iCart {
Number countTotal();
}
<=>
GET api/cart/{cartid}/total -> {total}
So an endpoint represents an exposed operation something like verbNoun(details) e.g. countCartTotal(cartId), which you can split into verb=countTotal, noun=cart, details=cartId and build the URI from it. The verb must be transformed into a HTTP method. In this case using GET makes the most sense, because we need data instead of sending data. The rest of the verb must be transformed into a noun, so countTotal -> GET totalCount. Then you can merge the two nouns: totalCount + cart -> cartTotal. Then you can build an URI template based on the resulting noun and the details: cartTotal + cartId -> cart/{cartid}/total and you are done with the endpoint design GET {root}/cart/{cartid}/total. Now you can bind it to the countCartTotal(cartId) or to the repo.resource(iCart, cartId).countTotal().
So I think if the structure of the id does not change, then you can even add it to the API documentation if you want to. Though it is not necessary to do so.
From security perspective you can return 404 if the only possible reason to send such a request is a hacking attempt, so the hacker won't know for certain why it failed and you don't expose details of the protection. In this situation it would be overthinking the problem, but in certain scenarios it makes sense e.g. where the API can leak data. For example when you send a password reset link, then a web application usually asks for an email address and most of them send an error message if it is not registered. This can be used to check if somebody is registered on the site, so better to hide this kind of errors. I guess in your case the id is not something sensitive and if you have proper access control, then even if a hacker knows the id, they cannot do much with that information.
Another possible aspect is something like what if the structure of the id changes. Well we write a different validation code, which allows only the new structure or maybe both structures and make a new version of the API with v2/api and v2/docs root and documentation URIs.
So I fully support your point of view and I think the other developer you mentioned does not even understand OOP and encapsulation, not to mention webservices and REST APIs.
Lets assume we have some main-resource and a related sub-resource with 1-n relation;
User of the API can:
list main-resources so GET /main-resources endpoint.
list sub-resources so GET /sub-resources endpoint.
list sub-resources of a main-resource so one or both of;
GET /main-resources/{main-id}/sub-resources
GET /sub-resouces?main={main-id}
create a sub-resource under a main-resource
POST /main-resource/{main-id}/sub-resouces: Which has the benefit of hierarchy, but in order to support this one needs to provide another set of endpoints(list, create, update, delete).
POST /sub-resouces?main={main-id}: Which has the benefit of having embedded id inside URL. A middleware can handle and inject provided values into request itself.
create a sub-resource with all parameters in body POST /sub-resources
Is providing a URI with main={main-id} query parameter embedded a good way to solve this or should I go with the route of hierarchical URI?
In a true REST environment the spelling of URIs is not of importance as long as the characters used in the URI adhere to the URI specification. While RFC 3986 states that
The path component contains data, usually organized in hierarchical form, that, along with data in the non-hierarchical query component (Section 3.4), serves to identify a resource within the scope of the URI's scheme and naming authority (if any). The path is terminated by the first question mark ("?") and number sign ("#") character, or by the end of the URI. (Source)
it does not state that a URI has to have a hierarchical structure assigned to it. A URI as a whole is a pointer to a resource and as such a combination of various URIs may give the impression of some hierarchy involved. The actual information of whether URIs have some hierarchical structure to it should though stem from link relations that are attached to URIs. These can be registered names like up, fist, last, next, prev and the like or Web linking extensions such as https://acme.org/rel/parent which acts more like a predicate in a Semantic Web relation basically stating that the URI at hand is a parent to the current resource. Don't confuse rel-URIs for real URIs though. Such rel-URIs do not necessarily need to point to an actual resource or even to a documentation. Such link relation extensions though my be defined by media-types or certain profiles.
In a perfect world the URI though is only used to send the request to the actual server. A client won't parse or try to extract some knowledge off an URI as it will use accompanying link relation names to determine whether the URI is of relevance to the task at hand or not. REST is full of such "indirection" mechanism in order to help decoupling clients from servers.
I.e. what is the difference between a URI like https://acme.org/api/users/1 and https://acme.org/api/3f067d90-8b55-4b60-befc-1ce124b4e080? Developers in the first case might be tempted to create a user object representing the data returned by the URI invoked. Over time the response format might break as stuff is renamed, removed and replaced by other stuff. This is what Fielding called typed resources which REST shouldn't have.
The second URI doesn't give you a clue on what content it returns, and you might start questioning on what benefit it brings then. While you might not be aware of what actual content the service returns for such URIs, you know at least that your client is able to process the data somehow as otherwise the service would have responded with a 406 Not Acceptable response. So, content-type negotiation ensures that your client will with high certainty receive data it is able to process. Maintaining interoperability in a domain that is likely to change over time is one of RESTs strong benefits and selling points. Depending on the capabilities of your client and the service, you might receive a tailored response-format, which is only applicable to that particular service, or receive a more general-purpose one, like HTML i.e.. Your client basically needs a mapping to translate the received representation format into something your application then can use. As mentioned, REST is probably all about introducing indirections for the purpose of decoupling clients from servers. The benefit for going this indirection however is that once you have it working it will work with responses issued not only from that server but for any other service that also supports returning that media type format. And just think a minute what options your client has when it supports a couple of general-purpose formats. It then can basically communicate and interoperate with various other services in that ecosystem without a need for you touching it. This is how browsers operate on the Web for decades now.
This is exactly why I think that this phrase of Fielding is probably one of the most important ones but also the one that is ignored and or misinterpreted by most in the domain of REST:
A REST API should spend almost all of its descriptive effort in defining the media type(s) used for representing resources and driving application state, or in defining extended relation names and/or hypertext-enabled mark-up for existing standard media types. (Source)
So, in a true REST environment the form of the URI is unimportant as clients rely on other mechanisms to determine whether to use that URI or not. Even for so called "REST APIs" that do not really care about the true meaning of REST and treat it more like old-school RPC the question at hands is probably very opinionated and there probably isn't that one fits all solution. If your framework supports injecting stuff based on the presence of certain query parameters, use that. If you prefer the more hierarchical structure of URIs, go for those. There isn't a right or wrong in such cases.
According to the URI standard when you have a hierarchical relationship between resources, then better to add it to the path instead of the query. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#page-22 Sometimes it is better to describe the relation itself, not just the sub-resource, but that happens only if the sub-resource can belong to multiple main resources, which is n:m relationship.
I have a service, which is exposed over HTTP. Most of traffic input gets into it via single HTTP GET endpoint, in which the payload is serialized and encrypted (RSA). The client system have common code, which ensures that the serialization and deserialization will succeed. One of the encoded parameters is the operation type, in my service there is a huge switch (almost 100 cases) that checks which operation is performed and executes the proper code.
case OPERATION_1: {
operation = new Operation1Class(basicRequestData, serviceInjected);
break;
}
case OPERATION_2: {
operation = new Operation2Class(basicRequestData, anotherServiceInjected);
break;
}
The endpoints have a few types, some of them are typical resource endpoints (GET_something, UPDATE_something), some of them are method based (VALIDATE_something, CHECK_something).
I am thinking about refactoring the API of the service so that it is more RESTful, especially in the resource-based part of the system. To do so I would probably split the endpoint into the proper endpoints (e.g. /resource/{id}/subresource) or RPC-like endpoints (/validateSomething). I feel it would be better, however I cannot make up any argument for this.
The question is: what are the advantages of the refactored solution, and what follows: what are the disadvantages of the current solution?
The current solution separates client from server, it's scalable (adding new endpoint requires adding new operation type in the common code) and quite clear, two clients use it in two different programming languages. I know that the API is marked as 0-maturity in the Richardson's model, however I cannot make up a reason why I should change it into level 3 (or at least level 2 - resources and methods).
Most of traffic input gets into it via single HTTP GET endpoint, in which the payload is serialized and encrypted (RSA)
This is potentially a problem here, because the HTTP specification is quite clear that GET requests with a payload are out of bounds.
A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics; sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request.
It's probably worth taking some time to review this, because it seems that your existing implementation works, so what's the problem?
The problem here is interop - can processes controlled by other people communicate successfully with the processes that you control? The HTTP standard gives us shared semantics for our "self descriptive messages"; when you violate that standard, you lose interop with things that you don't directly control.
And that in turn means that you can't freely leverage the wide array of solutions that we already have in support of HTTP, because you've introduce this inconsistency in your case.
The appropriate HTTP method to use for what you are currently doing? POST
REST (aka Richardson Level 3) is the architectural style of the world wide web.
Your "everything is a message to a single resource" approach gives up many of the advantages that made the world wide web catastrophically successful.
The most obvious of these is caching. "Web scale" is possible in part because the standardized caching support greatly reduces the number of round trips we need to make. However, the grain of caching in HTTP is the resource -- everything keys off of the target-uri of a request. Thus, by having all information shared via a single target-uri, you lose fine grain caching control.
You also lose safe request semantics - with every message buried in a single method type, general purpose components can't distinguish between "effectively read only" messages and messages that request that the origin server modify its own resources. This in turn means that you lose pre-fetching, and automatic retry of safe requests when the network is unstable.
In all, you've taken a rather intelligent application protocol and crippled it, leaving yourself with a transport protocol.
That's not necessarily the wrong choice for your circumstances - SOAP is a thing, after all, and again, your service does seem to be working as is? which implies that you don't currently need the capabilities that you've given up.
It would make me a little bit suspicious, in the sense that if you don't need these things, why are you using HTTP rather than some messaging protocol?
According to Rest, we should use GET if we have to retrieve some data, and use POST if it's creating a resource.
But, if we have to take multiple parameters (more than 7-8), or list of UUIDs let's say, then shouldn't we use POST rather than GET?
To avoid:
The complexity of the URL
Future scope to incorporate any new field
URL length which may limit us in future
If we are not encoding our URL then we may risk of exposing params (least significant point though)
Thanks.
GET Vs POST in REST
Use GET when the semantics of GET fit the use case; in other words, when you are trying to retrieve a copy of the latest representation of some resource.
Use POST when no other standardized method supports the semantics you need.
You can use POST for everything, but you give up the advantages of using more specialized methods -- the ability of general purpose components to do intelligent things because they understand the semantics of the request. For instance, GET has safe semantics, which means that a general purpose component knows that it can pre-fetch a representation of the resource before the user needs it, or automatically repeat a request if it doesn't get a response from the server.
What HTTP gives you is a extendable collections of refinements of the general purpose POST method, adding more specific constraints so that general purpose components can leverage the resulting properties.
The complexity of the URL
Complexity in the URL really isn't a big deal, as far as general purpose components are concerned a URL is just a opaque sequence of bytes that happens to abide by certain production rules. For the most part, the effective target-uri of a web request is treated as an atomic unit, so what might seem "complex to a human being doesn't bother the machines at all (for instance, take a look at the URL used when you submit a search from the google home page).
URL length which may limit us in future
We care a bit about URL length. RFC 3986 doesn't restrict the length of the URI, but some implementations of general purpose components will fail if the length is far outside the norm. So you probably don't want to include a url encoded copy of the unabridged works of Shakespeare in the query part of your request.
Future scope to incorporate any new field
Again, there's not a lot of difference here. Adding new optional elements to a URI template is really no different than adding new optional elements to a message template.
we may risk of exposing params
We also want to be careful about sensitive information - as far as the machines are concerned, the URI is an identifier; there's no particular reason to worry about a specific sequence of bytes. Which means that the URI may be exposed at rest (in a clients history, or list of bookmarks, in the servers access logs). Restricting sensitive information to the body of a message reduces the chance of the data escaping beyond its intended use.
Note that REST, and leveraging the different HTTP methods, isn't the only way to get useful work done. SOAP (and more recently gRPC) decided that a different collection of trade offs was better -- in effect, reducing HTTP to transport, rather than an application in itself.
According to Rest, we should ... use POST if it's creating a resource.
This is an incorrect interpretation of REST. It's a very common interpretation, but incorrect. The semantics of POST are defined by RFC 7231; it means that, and not something else.
The suggestion that POST should only be used for create is a misleading over simplification. The earliest references I've been able to find to it is a blog post by Paul Prescod in 2002; and of course it became very popular with the arrival of Ruby on Rails.
But recall: REST is the architectural style of the world wide web. HTML, the most common hypertext media type in use on the web, has native support for only two HTTP methods; GET, used to fetch resource representations from a server, and POST which does everything else.
You should also use POST if you have sensitive data such as username and or password which are best encoded as form parameters (key value pairs)
Until now, I used to think the only difference between GET and POST is the format on data trasmission.
In other examples I have seen that in REST Api, the only command to send information is POST, while for getting information is GET...
But what if I want to use GET also for information sending? I have to send a number of dataset names to be processed (usually a short number...)... I don't understand why GET doesn't fits this operation. Or it's only a "semantic" reason?
EDIT: I don't want answer about the general differences between GET or POST... I need to know if GET should not be used to update info of the server IN ALL CASES, in particular regarding my specific case, or there are some exceptions.
I don't understand why GET doesn't fits this operation. Or it's only a "semantic" reason?
Yes, but semantics are the entire point.
One of the important constraints of the REST architectural style is that of a uniform interface; the idea that all components understand messages the same way. What that gives us is the ability to achieve useful work using general purpose components.
In HTTP (an application built within the constraints of this style), that means that we can use browsers, and caches, and reverse proxies, and server toolkits, and so forth, mixing and matching as we go. It all works, because all of these components understand that a request should be interpreted as described in RFC 7230, and that the request method token is "the primary source of request semantics", and so on.
The semantics of GET have been defined, and we all share in that definition. The wording of the definition has evolved somewhat from its earliest specifications, but the basic semantics have been constant: that GET is effectively read-only, and that the message body (of the request) is of no semantic interest.
If you want to use an HTTP method where the message body is semantically significant, then you need to either relax some of the constraints of GET (for instance, by using POST), choose a different standardized method that better fits your use case (see the IANA HTTP Method Registry), or by defining (and potentially standardizing) your own HTTP method.
The core problem with trying to define a payload for GET - while your bespoke client may know what to do, and your bespoke resource may know what to do, general-purpose intermediates are likely to do the wrong thing (like caching responses without capturing the information in the request body, or discarding the body as unnecessary).
Note that information that is encoded into the target-uri works just fine; HTML forms using the GET method and other variations of URI templates can be used to construct a target-uri from local information that the server can interpret (of course, the defacto limits on target-uri length are much shorter than the defacto limits on payload size; it's not a universal solution).