If entity (e.g person) has data that has to be presented in different representations:
I have a big profile that has different representations but for a small example:
representations1:
GET /profiles/{id}/activity/projection1
returns:
{"actions":["add", "delete", "add"], "dates":[1499865456, 1499861544, 1499863655]}
representations2:
GET /profiles/{id}/activity/projection2
returns:
{add_at:[1499865456, 1499863655], delete_at:[1499861544]}
So the question: how to design such cases?
I have some ideas but don't know which one is better
GET /profiles/{id}/activity/projection1
GET /profiles/{id}/activity/projections/1
GET /profiles/{id}/activities/projection1
GET /profiles/{id}/activities/projections/1
GET /profiles/{id}/activity-actions and GET /profiles/{id}/activity-timestamps
I found only one same question Different RESTful representations of the same resource but it is about filtering data in response not about change model
A couple things to keep in mind
As far as REST is concerned, two things with different identifiers (URI) are different resources. The fact that they have the same source of truth is an implementation detail.
In designing a REST api, your resources are integration points. The representations of your resources will depend on the state of your model at any given time.
For instance, if I look up Clayton Kershaw at Baseball Reference, I am probably directed to this resource
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kershcl01.shtml
But if I ask to see his "2014 splits", then I'll be directed to this resource instead.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.fcgi?id=kershcl01&year=2014&t=p
There's no particular reason that every resource identifier related to kershcl01 has to be under the same root in the hierarchy.
You may want to review Cool URIs don't change; stable URI over time is a good goal for a design, in which case you'll want to make sure that temporary implementation details don't leak into the URI space.
Jim Webber's observation was that REST resources are part of your integration domain; "Resources adapt your domain model for the web."
So your design guidance should probably come from asking what properties are important to your consumers, and what constraints will ensure that those properties are present (outside in), rather than starting from your (current) implementation.
Related
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.
My application provides the following resource:
GET /user/:id/orders
As commonly used, this returns a list of all the user's orders.
Now, a client wants to check if a user has any orders at all without actually getting the complete list.
My current approach looks like this:
GET /user/:id/orders/exist
But it looks kind of odd to me.
Is there a more "standard" way of designing this? In the end, this resource only needs to return the information:
yes, user has orders
no, user doesn't have any orders
What you will see in some API is the notion of a resource that exists (204) or does not exist (404).
But I really don't recommend that: saving a few bytes in your representation of the resource doesn't help very much when you are already sending a response-line and a bunch of HTTP headers.
Your "resource model" can be anything you want.
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 -- Fielding, 2000
So you can create fine grained resources if you like; but there are can be consequences to that. "Tradeoffs" are a thing.
Resources are generalizations of "documents"; if it makes sense to have a report that is just a count of the number of orders, or a statement that the number of orders is greater than zero, or whatever, then that report can certainly be a resource in your resource model.
If you know what the report is, then you might be able to guess at a name for the report, and from there to a spelling for it.
There's no particular reason that the report identifier has to be part of the /user hierarchy; the machines don't care what spelling conventions you use.
/user/:id/orders/report
/user/:id/orders-report
/user/:id/report
/report/:id
/report?user=:id
/report/user=:id
Those are all fine; choose whichever variation is appropriate to your local conventions.
Note that you want to be aware of caching - when you have information in two different resources, it is easy for the client's locally cached copies to contradict each other (report says that there are orders, but the orders list is empty; or the other way around). As far as REST, and general purpose components are concerned, different resources are different, and vary independently of each other.
In the large grained world, you don't have that problem so often, because you throw the kitchen sink into a single resource; as long as its produced representations are internally consistent, the cached copies will be as well.
I have a simple model
Each Use can have multiple cars
Now when I decide to name the related REST URL naming for Cars service
Initially I suggest to be as the following
GET /cars/{carId}
But when I read about best practices in REST Resource Identifier (URI) Naming
I found that its better to put parent information in the URI as the following
GET /users/{userId}/cars/{carId}
Any one explain to us
Why the second one is the recommended naming
However, I need ONLY a carId to fetch the car
And no need to userId
REST does not care what spelling you use for your identifiers.
/a4e199c3-ea64-4249-96aa-abb71d860a55
Is a perfectly satisfactory REST identifier.
Guidelines such as the one that you linked should be understood a style guide; human readable identifiers that adhere to local spelling conventions are goodness for exactly the same reasons as human readable variable names that adhere to local spelling conventions.
Some URI guidelines advocate convention over configuration -- put broadly, you can simplify your implementations if you choose identifier spellings that allow your framework to deduce where things should live.
when I read about best practices in REST Resource Identifier (URI) Naming
I found that its better to put parent information in the URI
Maybe; part of the problem may be confusing resources with entities. It's an entirely normal thing for one single row in your database to contribute to the representation of many different resources, each of which has its own identifier
/users/:userId/cars/:carId
/cars/:carId
In HTTP, you might even send to the client information that the representation of one of these resources is equivalent to another (see RFC 7231).
The good news: hypermedia clients can deal this sort of thing automatically, because they have built into them awareness of the semantics of links; web aware hypermedia clients (for instance: browsers) will also be able to do the right thing with the meta data.
The bad news: you probably aren't using hypermedia types as your representations, so you won't see those benefits.
IMO, it depends more on the context. Consider the following example:
GET /users/user001/cars/car001
Response:
owner-name, car-license-no, purchase-date, first-owner
Here the response is - car details, specific to a user
GET /cars/car001
Response:
car-model-no, manufacturer, displacement, car-type
Here the response is - car details, specific to the car
This question is about optimal REST API design and a problem I'm facing to choose between nested resources and root level collections.
To demonstrate the concept, suppose I have collections City, Business, and Employees. A typical API may be constructed as follows. Imagine that ABC, X7N and WWW are keys, e.g. guids:
GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses (returns all Businesses in City ABC)
GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses/X7N (returns business X7N)
GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses/X7N/Employees (returns all employees at business X7N)
PUT Api/City/ABC/Businesses/X7N/Employees/WWW (updates employee WWW)
This appears clean because it follows the original domain structure - business are in a city, and employees are at a business. Individual items are accessible via key under the collection (e.g. ../Businesses returns all businesses, while ../Businesses/X7N returns the individual business).
Here is what the API consumer needs to be able to do:
Get businesses in a city (GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses)
Get all employees at a business (GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses/X7N/Employees)
Update individual employee information (PUT Api/City/ABC/Businesses/X7N/Employees/WWW)
That second and third call, while appearing to be in the right place, use a lot of parameters that are actually unnecessary.
To get employees at a business, the only parameter needed is the key of the business (X7N).
To update an individual employee, the only parameter needed it the key of the employee (WWW)
Nothing in the backend code requires non-key information to look up the business or update the employee. So, instead, the following endpoints appear better:
GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses (returns all Businesses in City ABC)
GET Api/Businesses/X7N (returns business X7N)
GET Api/Businesses/X7N/Employees (returns all employees at business X7N)
PUT Api/Employees/WWW (updates employee WWW)
As you can see, I've created a new root for businesses and employees, even though from a domain perspective they are a sub/sub-sub-collection.
Neither solution appears very clean to me.
The first example asks for unnecessary information, but is structured in a way that appears "natural" to the consumer (individual items from a collection are retrieved via lower leafs)
The second example only asks for necessary information, but isn't structured in a "natural" way - subcollections are accessible via roots
The individual employee root would not work when adding a new employee, as we need to know which business to add the employee to, which means that call would at least have to reside under the Business root, such as POST Api/Businesses/X7N7/Employees, which makes everything even more confusing.
Is there a cleaner, third way that I'm not thinking of?
I don't see how REST adds a constraint that two resources could not have the same value. The resourceType/ID is just an example of the easiest use case rather than the best way to go from a RESTful point of view.
If you read paragraph 5.2.1.1 of Roy Fielding's dissertation carefully, you will notice that Fielding makes the disctinction between a value and a resource. Now a resource should have a unique URI, that's true. But nothing prevents two resources from having the same value:
For example, the "authors' preferred version" of an academic paper is a mapping whose value changes over time, whereas a mapping to "the paper published in the proceedings of conference X" is static. These are two distinct resources, even if they both map to the same value at some point in time. The distinction is necessary so that both resources can be identified and referenced independently. A similar example from software engineering is the separate identification of a version-controlled source code file when referring to the "latest revision", "revision number 1.2.7", or "revision included with the Orange release."
So nothing prevents you from, as you say, changing the root. In your example, a Business is a value not a resource. It is perfectly RESTful to create a resource which is a list of "every business located in a city" (just like Roy's example, "revisions included with the Orange release"), while having a "business which ID is x" resource as well (like "revision number x").
For Employees, I would keep API/Businesses/X7N/Employees as the relation between a business and its employees is a composition relationship, and thus as you say, Employees can and should only be accessed through the Businesses class root. But this is not a REST requirement, and the other alternative is perfectly RESTful as well.
Note that this goes in pair with the application of the HATEAOS principle. In your API, the list of Businesses located in a city could (and perhaps should from a theoretical point of view) be just a list of links to the API/Businesses. But this would mean that the clients would have to do one round-trip to the server for each of the items in the list. This is not efficient and, to stay pragmatic, what I do is embed the representation of the business in the list along with the self link to the URI that would be in this example API/Businesses.
You should not confuse REST with the application of a specific URI naming convention.
HOW the resources are named is entirely secondary. You are trying to use HTTP resource naming conventions - this has nothing to do with REST. Roy Fielding himself states so repeatedly in the documents quoted above by others. REST is not a protocol, it is an architectural style.
In fact, Roy Fielding states in his 2008 blog comment (http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypertext-driven 6/20/2012):
"A REST API must not define fixed resource names or hierarchies (an obvious coupling of
client and server). Servers must have the freedom to control their own namespace. Instead,
allow servers to instruct clients on how to construct appropriate URIs, such as is done in
HTML forms and URI templates, by defining those instructions within media types and link relations."
So in essence:
The problem you describe is not actually a problem of REST - conceptually, it is a problem of HIERARCHY STRUCTURES versus RELATIONAL STRUCTURES.
While a business is "in" a city and so can be considered to be part of the city "hierarchy" - what about international companies which have offices in 75 cities. Then the city suddenly becomes the junior element in a hierarchy with the business name at the senior level of the structure.
The point is, you can view data from various angles, and depending on the viewpoint you take, it may be simplest to see it as a hierarchy. But the same data can be seen as a hierarchy with different levels. When you are using HTTP type resource names, then you have entered a hierarchy structure defined by HTTP. This is a constraint, yes, but it's not a REST constraint, it's a HTTP constraint.
From that angle, you can chose the solution which fits better to your scenario. If your customer cannot supply the city name when he supplies the company name (he may not know), then it would be better to have the key with only city name. As I said, it's up to you, and REST won't stand in your way ...
More to the point:
The only real REST constraints you have, if you have already decided to use HTTP with GET
PUT and so on, are:
Thou shalt not presumeth any prior ("out of band") knowledge between client and servers. *
Look at your proposal #1 above in that light. You assume that customers know the keys for the cities which are contained in your system? Wrong - that's not restful. So the server has to give the list of cities as a list of choices in some way. So are you going to list every city in the world here?
I guess not, but then you'll have to do some work on how you are planning to do this, which brings us to:
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 ...
I think, reading the mentioned Roy Fielding blog will help you out considerably.
In a RESTful-API URL design should be quite unimportant - or at least a side issue since the discoverability is encoded in the hypertext and not in the URL path. Have a look at the resources linked in the REST tag wiki here on StackOverflow.
But if you want to design human readable URLs for your UC, I would suggest the following:
Use the resource type you are creating/updating/querying as the first part of the URL (after your API prefix). So when somebody sees the URL he immediately knows to which resources this URL points. GET /Api/Employees... is the only only way to receive Employee resources from the API.
Use Unique IDs for each resource independent of the relations they are in. So GET /Api/<CollectionType>/UniqueKey should return a valid resource representation. Nobody should have to worry where the Employee is located. (But the returned Employee should have the links to the Business (and for convenience sake City) he belongs to.) GET /Api/Employees/Z6W returns the Employee with this ID no matter where is is located.
If you want to get a specific resource: Put your query parameter at the end (instead in the hierarchical order described in the question). You can use the URL query string (GET /Api/Employees?City=X7N) or a matrix parameter expression (GET /Api/Employees;City=X7N;Business=A4X,A5Y). This will allow you to easily express a collection of all Employees in a specific City - independent of the Business they are in.
Side node:
In my experience an initial hierarchical domain data model seldom survives additional requirements that come up during a project. In your case: Consider a business located in two Cities. You could create a workaround by modelling it as two separate businesses but what about the employee who works half his time in one place and the other half at the other location? Or even worse: It's only clear for which business he works but it's undefined, in which city?
The third way that I see is to make Businesses and Employees root resources and use query parameters to filter collections:
GET Api/Businesses?city=ABC (returns all Businesses in City ABC)
GET Api/Businesses/X7N (returns business X7N)
GET Api/Employees?businesses=X7N (returns all employees at business X7N)
PUT Api/Employees/WWW (updates employee WWW)
Your both solutions use concept of REST sub-resources which requires that subresource is included in parent resource so:
GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses
in response should also return data provided by:
GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses/X7N
GET Api/City/ABC/Businesses/X7N/Employees
similar for:
GET Api/Businesses/X7N
which should return data provided by:
GET Api/Businesses/X7N/Employees
It will make size of the response huge and time required to generate will increase.
To make REST API clean each resource should have only one bounded URI which fallow below patterns:
GET /resources
GET /resources/{id}
POST /resources
PUT /resources/{id}
If you need to make links between resources use HATEOAS
Go with example 1. I wouldn't worry about unnecessary information from the point of view of the server. A URL should clearly identify a resource in a unique fashion from the point of view of the client. If the client would not know what /Employee/12 means without first knowing that it is actually /Businesses/X7N/Employees/12 then the first URL seems redundant.
The client should be dealing with URLs rather than the individual parameters that make up the URLs, so there is nothing wrong with long URLs. To the client they are just strings. The server should be telling the client the URL to do what it needs to do, not the individual parameters that then require the client to construct the URL.
I am currently designing the API for an existing PHP application, and to this end am investigating REST as a sensible architectural approach.
I believe I have a reasonable grasp of the key concepts, but I'm struggling to find anybody that has tackled object hierarchies and REST.
Here's the problem...
In the [application] business object hierarchy we have:
Users
L which have one-to-many Channel objects
L which have one-to-many Member objects
In the application itself we use a lazy load approach to populate the User object with arrays of these objects as required. I believe in OO terms this is object aggregation, but I have seen various naming inconsistencies and do not care to start a war about the precise naming convention </flame war>.
For now, consider I have some loosely coupled objects that I may / may not populate depending on application need.
From a REST perspective, I am trying to ascertain what the approach should be. Here is my current thinking (considering GET only for the time being):
Option 1 - fully populate the objects:
GET api.example.com/user/{user_id}
Read the User object (resource) and return the User object with all possible Channel and Member objects pre-loaded and encoded (JSON or XML).
PROS: reduces the number of objects, no traversal of object hierarchies required
CONS: objects must be fully populated (expensive)
Option 2 - populate the primary object and include links to the other object resources:
GET api.example.com/user/{user_id}
Read the User object (resource) and return the User object User data populated and two lists.
Each list references the appropriate (sub) resource i.e.
api.example.com/channel/{channel_id}
api.example.com/member/{member_id}
I think this is close to (or exactly) the implications of hypermedia - the client can get the other resources if it wants (as long as I tag them sensibly).
PROS: client can choose to load the subordinates or otherwise, better separation of the objects as REST resources
CONS: further trip required to get the secondary resources
Option 3 - enable recursive retrieves
GET api.example.com/user/{user_id}
Read the User object and include links to lists of the sub-objects i.e.
api.example.com/user/{user_id}/channels
api.example.com/user/{user_id}/members
the /channels call would return a list of channel resources in the form (as above):
api.example.com/channel/{channel_id}
PROS: primary resources expose where to go to get the subordinates but not what they are (more RESTful?), no requirement to get the subordinates up front, the subordinate list generators (/channels and /members) provide interfaces (method like) making the response more service like.
CONS: three calls now required to fully populate the object
Option 4 - (re)consider the object design for REST
I am re-using the [existing] application object hierarchy and trying to apply it to REST - or perhaps more directly, provide an API interface to it.
Perhaps the REST object hierarchy should be different, or perhaps the new RESTful thinking is exposing limitations of the existing object design.
Any thoughts on the above welcomed.
There's no reason not to combine these.
api.example.com/user/{user_id} – return a user representation
api.example.com/channel/{channel_id} – return a channel representation
api.example.com/user/{user_id}/channels – return a list of channel representations
api.example.com/user/{user_id}/channel_list – return a list of channel ids (or links to their full representations, using the above links)
When in doubt, think about how you would display the data to a human user without "API" concerns: a user wants both index pages ({user_id}/channel_list) and full views ({user_id}/channels).
Once you have that, just support JSON instead of (or in addition to) HTML as the representation format, and you have REST.
The best advice I can give is to try and avoid thinking about your REST api as exposing your objects. The resources you create should support the use cases you need. If necessary you might create resources for all three options:
api.example.com/completeuser/{id}
api.example.com/linkeduser/{id}
api.example.com/lightweightuser/{id}
Obviously my names are a bit goofy, but it really doesn't matter what you call them. The idea is that you use the REST api to present data in the most logical way for the particular usage scenario. If there are multiple scenarios, create multiple resources, if necessary. I like to think of my resources more like UI models rather than business entities.
I would recommend Restful Obects which is standards for exposing domain model's restful
The idea of Restful Objects is to provide a standard, generic RESTful interface for domain object models, exposing representations of their structure using JSON and enabling interactions with domain object instances using HTTP GET, POST, PUT and DELETE.
According to the standard, the URIs will be like:
api.example.com/object/user/31
api.example.com/object/user/31/properties/username
api.example.com/object/user/31/collections/channels
api.example.com/object/user/31/collections/members
api.example.com/object/user/31/actions/someFunction
api.example.com/object/user/31/actions/someFunction/invoke
There are also other resources
api.example.com/services
api.example.com/domain-types
The specification defines a few primary representations:
object (which represents any domain object or service)
list (of links to other objects)
property
collection
action
action result (typically containing either an object or a list, or just feedback messages)
and also a small number of secondary representations such as home, and user
This is interesting as you’ll see that representations are fully self-describing, opening up the possibility of generic viewers to be implemented if required.
Alternatively, the representations can be consumed directly by a bespoke application.
Here's my conclusions from many hours searching and with input from the responders here:
Where I have an object that is effectively a multi-part object, I need to treat that as a single resource. Thus if I GET the object, all the sub-ordinates should be present. This is required in order that the resource is cacheable. If I part load the object (and provide an ETag stamp) then other requestors may receive a partial object when they expected a full one. Conclude - objects should be fully populated if they are being made available as resources.
Associated object relationships should be made available as links to other (primary) resources. In this way the objects are discoverable by traversing the API.
Also, the object hierarchy that made sense for main application site may appear not be what you need to act in RESTful manner, but is more likely revealing problems with the existing hierarchy. Having said this the API may require more specialised use cases than had been previously envisaged, and specialised resources may be required.
Hope that helps someone