Converting RPC style web service operation to a REST service - rest

I'm converting a SOAP based RPC style "web service" to a JSON based REST web service using ASP.NET Web API.
Methods such as AddXYZ / UpdateXYZ / RemoveXYZ map cleanly to the HTTP verbs for POST/PUT/DELETE. Are there any best practices/guidance for mapping typical RPC style operations such as "ExecuteXYZ" or "AssignXYZ" style methods to it's REST counterpart?
My take is that such operations would map to corresponding URL addressable resources such as "ExecuteXYZRequest" and "AssignXYZRequest"
http://myhost/myservice/ExecuteXYZRequest
http://myhost/myservice/AssignXYZRequest
A request to execute "ExecuteXYZ" would then translate to a POST operation.
Getting the submitted request would translate to a GET(typically would be used to get the status of the submitted request).
http://myhost/myservice/ExecuteXYZRequest/1 <--- 1 is the ID of the request
Cancelling the request(assuming it's cancellable) would translate to a DELETE
POST would not really map to anything.
Does the above sound like a reasonable REST implementation or am I totally off in my thinking here?
Thought/guidance much appreciated.
UPDATE
Here is the specific example I'm trying to model:
A many to many relationship between a Contact and an Event entity. What would be the best way to model the membership of a Contact to an Event as a REST resource such that a Contact can be added/ removed from an Event. In the RPC land This would be a method such as "AssignContactToEvent" which takes the IDs of both entities and set up the relationship between these two. How can this be modeled naturally in REST as a resource. I recall that there is a concept of links and "rel" but cannot find a concrete practical example illustrating how to model something like this using Web API

Question is whether it makes sense for the RPC methods to map to REST
resources as indicated in the post
In a nutshell; no, it doesn't make sense to map methods to resources in the way you describe :)
In order to successfully "do REST" we have to think a little differently, and abandon all thoughts of RPC and CRUD-operations; these are really rather limiting once you embrace being RESTful!
The key abstraction of information in REST is a resource. Any
information that can be named can be a resource: a document or image,
a temporal service (e.g. "today's weather in Los Angeles"), a
collection of other resources, a non-virtual object (e.g. a person),
and so on. In other words, any concept that might be the target of an
author's hypertext reference must fit within the definition of a
resource. A resource is a conceptual mapping to a set of entities, not
the entity that corresponds to the mapping at any particular point in
time.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm
A method or action/verb is then not a resource, so it has no place in a URI -- unless of course you're building an application that allows people to create their own methods, which would be rather unusual!
Taking your specific example for a contacts and events relationship, it's important to understand that your 'AssignContactToEvent' is an action that happens under the Web-API layer and cannot be modelled RESTfully; I hope this will become clear in the course of the following examples :)
First we need some good resources to model a list of all Contacts, and a list of all Events:
/contacts
/events
These resources model an individual Contact or Event identified by an ID-token:
/contacts/{contact_id}
/events/{event_id}
The users of your application want to know who is involved in a particular Event, so we need a resource that models a list of the Event's participants:
/events/{event_id}/participants
When we want to add a Contact to an Event, we could POST a minimal Contact-representation (containing just the Contact-ID) to the Event's participants-list:
POST /events/{event_id}/participants/ HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json
{'id': {contact_id}}
To remove a Contact from an Event:
DELETE /events/{event_id}/participants/{contact_id} HTTP/1.1
Your application-users also want to see at-a-glance the Events a Contact is participating in, so you need another to resource to model this:
/contacts/{contact_id}/events
Similarly, you can now GET a list of Events for the Contact, and assign Events using POST:
POST /contacts/{contact_id}/events/ HTTP/1.1
Content-Type: application/json
{'id': {event_id}}
The important point to take onboard is that whenever you need to model something new, you create a resource. The details of how you store the properties and relationships of data-objects are abstracted away behind a Web-API. Indeed, the data-storage technology might change in future, say from relational to object-store, or you change your programming language or framework, but in all cases your URI's (and Web-API) remain the same. REST and HTTP are designed to endure well-beyond the technologies that run under-the-hood.
As a final example of creating new resources, consider a resource that models a list of Contact's who have an organiser-role:
/events/{event_id}/organisers
or this one that models the list of Events that a Contact is organising:
/contacts/{contact_id}/events-organised
If you have a authentication-system, then you might want to see the events you are attending:
/my-account/events
I hope this helps to clarify the purpose of a Web-API and following RESTful principles.

There are two approaches that I have seen so far.
One is to map the action to a verb if there are very few actions so there is no collision. So if action is not safe nor idempotent then POST, otherwise if not safe but idempotent then PUT:
POST http://myhost/myservice/XYZ
Other is to define the action as a logical resource:
POST http://myhost/myservice/XYZ/Assignment
Later is richer and I favour that.

Few Important Points
RPC Endpoint -> REST Entry Point
RPC read method -> REST GET on Resource
RPC create method -> REST POST operation
PRC delete method -> REST DELETE operation
RPC SOAP Message -> REST PayLoad
additonaly , think about Cache headers , Content-Type headers like #Consumes, #Produces

Related

How do PUT, POST or PATCH request differ ultimately?

The data, being sent over a PUT/PATCH/POST request, ultimately ends up in the database.
Now whether we are inserting a new resource or updating or modifying an existing one - it all depends upon the database operation being carried out.
Even if we send a POST and ultimately perform just an update in the database, it does not impact anywhere at all, isn't it?!
Hence, do they actually differ - apart from a purely conceptual point of view?
Hence, do they actually differ - apart from a purely conceptual point of view?
The semantics differ - what the messages mean, and what general purpose components are allowed to assume is going on.
The meanings are just those described by the references listed in the HTTP method registry. Today, that means that POST and PUT are described by HTTP semantics; PATCH is described by RFC 5789.
Loosely: PUT means that the request content is a proposed replacement for the current representation of some resource -- it's the method we would use to upload or replace a single web page if we were using the HTTP protocol to do that.
PATCH means that the request content is a patch document - which is to say a proposed edit to the current representation of some resource. So instead of sending the entire HTML document with PUT, you might instead just send a fix to the spelling error in the title element.
POST is... well, POST is everything else.
POST serves many useful purposes in HTTP, including the general purpose of “this action isn’t worth standardizing.” -- Fielding 2009
The POST method has the fewest constraints on its semantics (which is why we can use it for anything), but the consequence is that the HTTP application itself has to be very conservative with it.
Webber 2011 includes a good discussion of the implementations of the fact that HTTP is an application protocol.
Now whether we are inserting a new resource or updating or modifying an existing one - it all depends upon the database operation being carried out.
The HTTP method tells us what the request means - it doesn't place any constraints on how your implementation works.
See Fielding, 2002:
HTTP does not attempt to require the results of a GET to be safe. What it does is require that the semantics of the operation be safe, and therefore it is a fault of the implementation, not the interface or the user of that interface, if anything happens as a result that causes loss of property (money, BTW, is considered property for the sake of this definition).
The HTTP methods are part of the "transfer of documents over a network" domain - ie they are part of the facade that allows us to pretend that the bank/book store/cat video archive you are implementing is just another "web site".
It is about the intent of the sender and from my perspective it has a different behaviour on the server side.
in a nutshell:
POST : creates new data entry on the server (especially with REST)
PUT : updates full data entry on the server (REST) or it creates a new data entry (non REST). The difference to a POST request is that the client specifies the target location on the server.
PATCH : the client requests a partial update (Id and partial data of entry are given). The difference to PUT is that the client sends not the full data back to the server this can save bandwidth.
In general you can use any HTTP request to store data (GET, HEAD, DELETE...) but it is common practice to use POST, PUT, and PATCH for specific and standardized scenarios. Because every developer can understand it later
They are slightly different and they bind to different concepts of REST API (which is based on HTTP)
Just imagine that you have some Booking entity. And yo perform the following actions with resources:
POST - creates a new resource. And it is not idempotent - if you sent the same request twice -> two bookings will be stored. The third time - will create the third one. You are updating your DB with every request.
PUT - updates the full representation of a resource. It means - it replaces the booking full object with a new one. And it is idempotent - you could send a request ten times result will be the same (if a resource wasn't changed between your calls)
PATCH - updates some part of the resource. For example, your booking entity has a date property -> you update only this property. For example, replace the existing date with new date which is sent at the request.
However, for either of the above - who is deciding whether it is going to be a new resource creation or updating/modifying an existing one, it's the database operation or something equivalent to that which takes care of persistence
You are mixing different things.
The persistence layer and UI layer are two different things.
The general pattern used at Java - Model View Controller.
REST API has its own concept. And the DB layer has its own purpose. Keep in mind that separating the work of your application into layers is exactly high cohesion - when code is narrow-focused and does one thing and does it well.
Mainly at the answer, I posted some concepts for REST.
The main decision about what the application should do - create the new entity or update is a developer. And this kind of decision is usually done through the service layer. There are many additional factors that could be done, like transactions support, performing filtering of the data from DB, pagination, etc.
Also, it depends on how the DB layer is implemented. If JPA with HIbernate is used or with JDBC template, custom queries execution...

Is it a good practice to use 'createModel' in REST?

I'm looking for a best way for implementing an endpoint of REST-full application that will be responsible for creating a new library orders. Let's assume that I have the following resources.
If I want to get all books of a particular author I can use the next endpoint:
HTTP GET
api/books/author/123
If I want to fetch all orders of a particular book I can use the endpoint provided below:
HTTP GET
api/books/456/orders
My question is what will be the most suitable URL and a request model for an endpoint that will create orders?
From my perspective it can be
HTTP POST
api/books/456/orders
And one more question. Is it a good practice in REST to use request models like CreateOrder? If I want to create a REST-full web application can I use the following request model:
class CreateOrder
{
AuthorId: number;
BookId: number;
ClientId: number;
}
Sometimes it makes me confused. Should request models look like our resources or not?
Let's assume that I have the following resources.
Your "resources" look suspiciously like "tables". Resources are closer to (logical) documents about information.
what will be the most suitable URL and a request model for an endpoint that will create orders
For the most part, it doesn't matter what URL you use to create orders. In a hypermedia application (think HTML), I'm going to submit a "form", and the meta data associated with that form are going to describe for the client how to compose a request from the form data.
So the human, or the code, that is manipulating the form doesn't need to know anything about the URL (when is the last time that you looked to see where Google was actually sending your search?)
As far as general purpose web components are concerned, the URL/URI is just an opaque identifier - they don't care what the spelling means.
A thing they do care about is whether the spelling is the same as something that they have cached. One of the consequences of a successful POST /x message is that the cached representation(s) of /x are invalidated.
So if you like, you can think about which cached document should be refreshed when an order is created, and send the request to the identifier for that document.
Should request models look like our resources or not?
It's not necessary. Again, think about the web -- what would the representation of create order look like if you were POSTing form data?
clientId=1&bookId=2
or maybe
bookId=2&copies=3
If the "who is creating an order" is answered using the authorization headers.
In our HTTP requests and responses, we are fundamentally sending message representations - sequences of bytes that conform to some schema. There's no particular reason that those sequences of bytes must, or must not, be the same as those we use elsewhere in the implementation.
Your end-point does not need to always start with /books. You can introduce another end-point /orders for creating or getting orders. So , to create an order , you can :
HTTP POST
api/orders
And does the 'request model' that you mean is the HTTP request body structure ? If yes, it does not need to be 100% match with your back-end persisted/domain model. Just include enough parameters that the server needs to know in order to create an order. (e.g. Include bookId rather than the whole book object etc.)
BTW , to get all books for a particular author , it is more common to use query parameter such as :
HTTP GET
api/books?authorId=123
What you are doing is not REST, it is CRUD over HTTP. REST does not care about your URI structures and resources are very far from database tables. If CRUD is all you need, then download a CRUD generator library https://github.com/search?q=crud+generator&type=Repositories, which will generate all the upper and you won't need to write it manually.

What is the proper RESTful API method to replace an entire collection?

Imagine, We have an Entity School and this entity has a one to many relationship with Student entity. In other words, there is a collection of Students attached to a given School
If we are to replace the entire Student collection via a single API call,
API_URL/school/:school_id/students
which is the best Rest method to go along with. I think PUT is only used on an Entity not on a Collection. Hence, available options would be to use either PATCH or POST
I think PUT is only used on an Entity not on a Collection
No - PUT is used on a resource, not on an entity or collection.
The PUT method requests that the state of the target resource be created or replaced with the state defined by the representation enclosed in the request message payload.
The changes that happen to the entities in your domain are a side effect of the manipulation of REST resources. See Jim Webber's talk REST: DDD in the Large.
If your message body is a replacement representation for the resource, then either POST or PUT is the appropriate method to use
If your message body is a patch document, then you should use POST or PATCH.
If you are concerned that POST would be overloaded, then create a new resource in your design to manage this part of your integration protocol.
Again, heed Jim Webber:
URIs do NOT map onto domain objects - that violates encapsulation. Work (ex: issuing commands to the domain model) is a side effect of managing resources. In other words, the resources are part of the anti-corruption layer. You should expect to have many many more resources in your integration domain than you do business objects in your business domain.
I'm facing same issue. My teammates hate none resource nouns in the path. So in order to pass the API design review and to distinct an operation on whole collection from one on a single resource, I go one level up to the school.
GET /schools/1234
{
"schoolMetadat": "xxxx",
"students": []
}
And PATCH on the students property. An update to a property is always replacement.
For updating the entire resource use PUT, for partial update use PATCH.
PATCH API_URL/school/:school_id {students: [...]}
PUT API_URL/school/:school_id/students [...]
PATCH API_URL/school/:school_id/students {add: [...], remove: [...]}
And don't confuse web services in the presentation layer with ORMs in the data access layer.

Make a RESTful API call that updates many related entities

We have a model that looks like this
Login <- Email Addresses <- Person -> Teen
And a stored procedure which takes some properties from teen, some from person, and some from Login, and creates a new teen, returning a person entity.
Looking from a classic RPC perspective, this is easy...just expose a method InsertTeen and have it call the stored procedure.
I've been trying to wrap my head around the RESTful idea of having URLs as my resources (nouns), and the only actions being HTTP actions (verbs). Obviously, a URL like /api/InsertTeen is not RESTful at all.
But here I'm not dealing with any particular resource.
The only thing I can thing of here would be to expose a resource like insertTeenRequest.
Are there any other ideas of how to do this? Am I being too much of a "zealot"?
If you want to be really RESTful, you should use several requests to your API in this case. For example first you create Teen with POST to /api/teens/, then create Person with POST to /api/persons/ and so on.
Pretty new to REST myself, but my thinking is that here you would use a "POST" with the body of the request containing the data needed to create a 'Teen', in whatever format you are using, usually JSON or XML. Here, I'm not sure whether you treat Teens as Persons with additional properties, or a Teen is modeled as an entity itself:
<person login="abc" email="abc#foo.com">
<person-property-1>value1</person-property-1>
<person-property-2>value2</person-property-2>
<teen>
<teen-property-1>value3</teen-property-1>
<teen-property-2>value4</teen-property-2>
</teen>
</person>
or
<teen login="abc" email="abc#foo.com">
<person-property-1>value1</person-property-1>
<person-property-2>value2</person-property-2>
<teen-property-1>value3</teen-property-1>
<teen-property-2>value4</teen-property-2>
</teen>
Regarding the URI, I believe the segments should be nouns rather than verbs since the URI is supposed to address a resource, so /api/teens rather than /api/InsertTeen.
/api/teens with an HTTP GET would return a list of all Teens, and /api/teens with an HTTP POST would insert a new Teen. To round out the CRUD operations, /api/teens/{id} using HTTP GET would return a specific Teen, /api/teens/{id} with an HTTP PUT would update a Teen using the values passed in the request body, and /api/teens/{id} called with HTTP DELETE would delete the specified Teen.
Edit
Read over your question again, and I may have misunderstood. If you aren't treating 'teens' as a resource, but only 'people', then I would consider /api/people with an HTTP POST, and depending on the values passed in the body of the request, do whatever is appropriate to store that 'person'. So, if the request contained 'teen' values, call your stored procedure that creates a 'Teen' and returns a 'Person'.
HTH

RESTful resource - accepts a list of objects

I'm building a collection of RESTful resources that work like the following: (I'll use "people" as an example):
GET /people/{key}
- returns a person object (JSON)
GET /people?first_name=Bob
- returns a list of person objects who's "first_name" is "Bob" (JSON)
PUT /people/{key}
- expects a person object in the payload (JSON), updates the person in the
datastore with the {key} found in the URL parameter to match the payload.
If it is a new object, the client specifies the key of the new object.
I feel pretty comfortable with the design so far (although any input/criticism is welcome).
I'd also like to be able to PUT a list of people, however I'm not confident in the RESTfulness of my design. This is what I have in mind:
PUT /people
- expects a list of objects in JSON form with keys included in the object
("key":"32948"). Updates all of the corresponding objects in the datastore.
This operation will be idempotent, so I'd like to use "PUT". However its breaking a rule because a GET request to this same resource will not return the equivalent of what the client just PUT, but would rather return all "people" objects (since there would be no filters on the query). I suspect there are also a few other rules that might be being broken here.
Someone mentioned the use of a "PATCH" request in an earlier question that I had: REST resource with a List property
"PATCH" sounds fantastic, but I don't want to use it because its not in wide use yet and is not compatible with a lot of programs and APIs yet.
I'd prefer not to use POST because POST implies that the request is not idempotent.
Does anyone have any comments / suggestions?
Follow-up:::
While I hesitated to use POST because it seems to be the least-common-denominator, catch-all for RESTful operations and more can be said about this operation (specifically that it is idempotent), PUT cannot be used because its requirements are too narrow. Specifically: the resource is not being completely re-written and the equivalent resource is not being sent back from a GET request to the same resource. Using a PUT with properties outside of it's specifications can cause problems when applications, api's, and/or programmers attempt to work with the resource and are met with unexpected behavior from the resource.
In addition to the accepted answer, Darrel Miller had an excellent suggestion if the operation absolutely had to be a PUT and that was to append a UUID onto the end of the resource path so an equivalent GET request will return the equivalent resource.
POST indicates a generic action other than GET, PUT, and DELETE (the generic hashtable actions). Because the generic hashtable actions are inappropriate, use POST. The semantics of POST are determined by the resource to which an entity is POSTed. This is unlike the semantics of the generic hashtable methods, which are well-known.
POST /people/add-many HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Content-Type: application/json
[
{ "name": "Bob" },
{ "name": "Robert" }
]
Using PUT is definitely the wrong verb in this case. POST is meant to do exactly what you are asking. From the HTTP specification:
The fundamental difference between the POST and PUT requests is reflected in the different meaning of the Request-URI. The URI in a POST request identifies the resource that will handle the enclosed entity. That resource might be a data-accepting process, a gateway to some other protocol, or a separate entity that accepts annotations. In contrast, the URI in a PUT request identifies the entity enclosed with the request -- the user agent knows what URI is intended and the server MUST NOT attempt to apply the request to some other resource...
As such, if you want to update multiple resources in a single call, you have to use POST.
Just be cause PUT is required to be idempotent and POST is not, does not mean that POST cannot be idempotent. Your choice of HTTP verb should not be based on that, but based on the relationship of the requested resource and the resource acted upon. If your application is directly handling the resource requested, use PUT. If it is acting on some other resource (or resources, as in your case), use POST.
I really don't see any easy way you could use PUT to create an arbitrary set of people. Unless, you are prepared to have the client generate a GUID and do something like,
PUT /PeopleList/{1E8157D6-3BDC-43b7-817D-C3DA285DD606}
On the server side you could take the people from the list and add them to the /People resource.
A slight variation to this approach would be to get the server to include a link such as
<link rel="AddList" href="/PeopleList/{1E8157D6-3BDC-43b7-817D-C3DA285DD606}"/>
in the People resource. The client would need to know that it needs to PUT a list of people to the AddList link. The server would need to make sure that each time it renders the /People resource it creates a new url for the AddList link.
Regarding Darren Miller's suggestion of using PUT to a GUID (I can't comment...), the point of using PUT would be to achieve idempotency for the operation. The litmus test if idempotency would be this conversation between the client and server:
PUT /PeopleList/{1E8157D6-3BDC-43b7-817D-C3DA285DD606}
204 NO CONTENT (indicates that it all went well)
client loses connection and doesn't see the 204
client automatically retries
PUT /PeopleList/{1E8157D6-3BDC-43b7-817D-C3DA285DD606}
How would the server differentiate the two? If the GUID is "used up" so to speak then the server would have to respond 404 or 410. This introduces a tiny bit of conversational state on the server to remember all the GUIDs that have been used.
Two clients would often see the same I guess, because of caching or simply keeping stale responses around.
I think a smart solution is to use POST to create an (initially empty, short lived) holding area for a resource to which you can PUT, i.e. clients need to POST to create the GUID resource instead of discovering it via a link:
POST /PeopleList/CreateHoldingArea
201 CREATED and Location: /PeopleList/{1E8157D6-3BDC-43b7-817D-C3DA285DD606}
PUT /PeopleList/{1E8157D6-3BDC-43b7-817D-C3DA285DD606}
This would mean that the lost idempotency would not result in much overhead; clients simply create new GUIDs (by POSTing) if they didn't see the initial 201 CREATED response. The "tiny bit of conversational state" would now only be the created but not yet used holding areas.
The ideal solution would of course not require any conversational state on the server, but it eludes me.