Related
My understanding of SOAP vs REST:
REST = JSON, simple consistent interface, gives you CRUD access to 'entities' (Abstractions of things which are not necessarily single DB rows), simpler protocol, no formally enforced 'contract' (e.g. the values an endpoint returns could change, though it shouldn't)
SOAP = XML, more complex interface, gives you access to 'services' (specific operations you can apply to entities, rather than allowing you to CRUD entities directly), formally enforced, pre-stated 'contract' (like a WSDL, where e.g. the return types are predefined and formalized)
Is that a broadly correct assessment?
What about a mixture?
If so, what do I call an API that is a mixture?
For example, If we have what at surface level looks like a REST API (returns JSON, no WSDL or formalized contract defined - but instead of giving you access to the 'entities' that the system manages (User, product, comment, etc) it instead gives you specific access to services and complex operations (/sendUserAnUpdate/1111, /makeCommentTextPurple/3333, /getAllCommentsByUserThisYear/2222) without having full coverage?
The 'services' already exist internally, and the team simply publishes access to them on a request by request basis, through what would otherwise look like a REST API.
Question:
What is the 'mixture' typically referred to as (besides, maybe, a bad API). Is there a word for it? or a concept I can refer to that'll make most developers understand what I'm referring to, without having to say the entire paragraph I did above?
Is it just "JSON SOAP API?", "A Service-based REST API?" - what would you call it?
Thanks!
Thanks!
If you take a look at all those so-called REST-APIs your observation might seem true, though REST actually is something completely different. It describes an architecture or a philosophy whose intent it is to decouple clients from servers, allowing the latter one to evolve in future without breaking clients. It is quite similar to the typical Web page interaction in that a server will teach a client on what it needs and only reacts on client-triggered requests. One has to be pretty careful and pendant when designing REST services as it is too easy to include a coupling that may affect clients when a change is introduced, especially with all the pragmatism around in (commercial) software engineering. Stefan Tilkov gave a great talk on REST back in 2014 that, alongside with Jim Webber or Asbjørn Ulsberg, can be used as introduction lectures to what REST is at its core.
The general premise in REST should always be that a server teaches clients what they need and what a server expects and offers choices to the client via links. If the server expects to receive data from the client it will send a form-esque representation to inform the client about the respective fields it supports and based on the affordance of the respective elements contained in the form a client knows whether to select one or multiple options, enter some free text or enter a date value and such. Unfortunately, most of the media-type formats that attempt to mimic HTML's forms are still in draft versions.
If you take a look at HTML forms in particular you might sense what I'm refering to. Each of the elements that may occur inside a form are well defined to avoid abmiguity and improve interoperability. This is defacto the ultimate goal in REST, having one client that is able to interact with a sheer amount of other services without having to be adapted to each single API explicitely.
The beauty of REST is, it isn't limited to a single representation form, i.e. JSON, in fact there is almost an infinite number of possible representation formats that could be exchanged in a REST environment. Plain application/json is a terrible media-type for REST applications IMO as it doesn't include any defintions in regards to links and forms and doesn't describe the semantics of certain fields that may be shipped in requests and responses. The lack of semantical description usually leads to typed resources where a recipient expects that receiving data from i.e. /api/users returns some specific user data, that may differ from host to host. If you skim through IANA's media type registry you will find a couple of media-type formats you could have used to transfer user-related data and any client supporting these representation formats whold be able to interact with this enpoint without any issues. Fielding himself claimed that
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. Any effort spent describing what methods to use on what URIs of interest should be entirely defined within the scope of the processing rules for a media type (and, in most cases, already defined by existing media types). (Source)
Through content-type negotiation client and server will negotiate about a representation format both support and understand. The question therefore shouldn't be which one to support but how many you want to support. The more media-type your API or client is able to exchange payloads for, the more likely it will be to interact with other participants.
Most of those so-called REST APIs are in reality just RPC services exposed via HTTP that may or may not respect and support certain HTTP operations. HTTP thereby is just a transport layer whose domain is the transfer of files or data over the Web. Plenty of people still believe that you shouldn't put verbs in URIs when in reality a script or process usually doesn't (and shouldn't) care whether a URI contains a verb or not. The URI itself is just a pointer a client will follow and invoke when it is interested in receiving the payload. We humans are also not that much interested in the URI itself in regards to the content it may return after invoking that URI. The same holds true for arbitrary clients. It is more important what you ship along with that URI. On the Web a link can be annotated with certain text and/or link relation names that set the links content in relation to the current page. It may hint a client that certain content may be invoked before the whole response was parsed as it is quite likely that the client will also want to know about that. preload i.e. is such a link-relation name that hints the client about that. If certain domain-specific terms exist one might use an extension scheme as defined by Web linking or reuse common knowlege or special microformats.
The whole interaction in a REST environment is similar to playing a text-based computer game or following a certain process flow (i.e. ordering and paying produts) defined by an application domain protocol, that can be designed as a state machine. The client is therefore guided through the whole process. It basically just follows the orders the server gave it, with some choices to break out of the process (i.e. cancel the order before paying).
SOAP on the otherhand is, as you've stated, an XML-based RPC protocol reusing a subset of HTTP to exchange requests and responses. The likelihood that when you change something within your WSDL plenty of clients have to be adapted and recompiled are quite high. SOAP even defines its own security mechanism instead of reusing TLS, which requires explicit support by the clients therefore. As you have a one-to-one communication model due to the state that may be kept in process, scaling SOAP services isn't that easy. In a REST environment this is just a matter of adding a load-balancer before the server and then mirroring the server n-times. The load-balancer can send the request to any of the servers due to the stateless constraint
What is the 'mixture' typically referred to as (besides, maybe, a bad API). Is there a word for it? or a concept I can refer to that'll make most developers understand what I'm referring to, without having to say the entire paragraph I did above?
Is it just "JSON SOAP API?", "A Service-based REST API?" - what would you call it?
The general term for an API that communicates on top of HTTP would be Web API or HTTP API IMO. This article also uses this term. It also lists XML-RPC and JSON-RPC besides SOAP. I do agree with Voice though that you'll receive 5 answers on asking 4 people about the right term to use. While it would be convenient to have a respective term available everyone would agree upon, the reality shows that people are not that interested in a clear separation. Just look here at SO on the questions taged with rest. There is nothing wrong with not being "RESTful", though one should avoid the term REST for truly RPC services. Though I think we are already in a situation where the term REST can't be rescued from misusage and marketing purposes.
For something that requires external documentation to use and that ships with its own custom, non-standardized representation format or that just exposes CRUD for domain objects I'd add -RPC to it, as this is more or less what it is at its heart. So if the API sends JSON and the representation to expect is documented via Swagger or some other external documentationJSON-RPC would probably the most fitting name IMO.
To sum up this post, I hope I could shed some light on what REST truly is and how your observation is flawed by all those pragmatic attempts that unfortunately are RPC through and through. If you change something within their implementation, how many clients will break? In addition to that you can't reuse the client that you've implemented for API A to interact with API B (of a different company or vendor) out of the box and therefore have to either adapt your client or create a new one solely for that API. This is true RPC and therfore should be reflected in the name somehow to hint developers about future expectations. Unfortunately, the process of naming things propperly, especially in regards to REST, seems already lost. There is a fine but tiny group who attempt to spread the true meaning, like Voice, Cassio and some others, though it is like fighting windmills. The best advice here would be to first discuss the naming conventions and what each participant understand on which term and then agree on a naming scheme everyone agrees on to avoid future confusion.
My understanding of SOAP vs REST
...
Is that a broadly correct assessment?
No.
REST is an "architectural style", which is to say a coordinated collection of architectural constraints. The World Wide Web is an example of an application built using the REST architectural style.
SOAP is a transport agnostic message protocol specification, based on XML Information Set
If so, what do I call an API that is a mixture?
I don't think you are going to find an authoritative terminology here. Colloquially, you are likely to hear the broad umbrella term "web api" to describe an HTTP API that isn't "RESTful".
The whole space is rather polluted by semantic diffusion.
I know REST has, in principal, nothing to do with HTTP. HTTP is a protocol and REST is an architecture style for hypermedia transfer over the web. REST can use any application-layer protocol like HTTP, FTP etc... There are lot of discussions about REST, most of are bit confusing. e.g.; REST, non Rest.
It is stated mostly that REST puts following constraints on any application-protocol (e.g. HTTP etc). For example in Fielding's thesis.
Client-server`
Stateless
Cacheable
Layered system
Code on demand
Uniform interface
If I closely looking into RFC, the specifications of HTTP/1.1, it is stated that HTTP is Stateless, server-client, uses URIs to address resources. So these constraints about which Roy Fielding talked about are already in HTTP.
There are some API like Jersey JAX-RSwhich provide API implementation for REST based on HTTP. What extra features they add on HTTP basics? All the methods like PUT, GET are also there in HTTP.
I don't find a clear difference between HTTP and REST then if REST is implemented based on HTTP.
Clarifications:
REST is an architectural style (repeated for completeness, you seem to be clear on this point).
The World Wide Web is a reference application, which (mostly) demonstrates that architectural style.
HTTP is one of three "core" technologies in the web stack.
I don't find a clear difference between HTTP and REST then if REST is implemented based on HTTP.
The short answer is that HTTP alone is not sufficient.
Jim Webber (2011)
HTTP is an application protocol whose application domain is the transfer of documents across a network.
We had applications to transfer documents across a network prior to HTTP -- file transfer protocol, gopher, wais... all of which had negligible penetration into the general public. In contrast, the web was catastrophically successful; it was the killer app of the internet.
Fielding's thesis -- in particular Chapter 6: Experience and Evaluation -- is, among other things, an exploration of the question "why was the web so successful?" with emphasis on the architectural constraints that protected the induced properties of the web.
In 2008, Leonard Richardson introduced his maturity heuristic for evaluating web services.
[URI + HTTP + HTML] form a technology stack for web services. When people design a web service they tend to pick some technologies from the bottom of the stack. You can judge them crudely by seeing whether they pick zero, one, two, or three technologies.
When I say you pick from the stack I don't mean that you'll ever find a web service that doesn't use HTTP at all or that has no URIs. I mean there's a class of web services that doesn't really get URIs or doesn't really get HTTP. If your REST radar is finely tuned you sense there's something wrong with these services, and you can talk about violation of the RESTful constraints, but it's kind of a bloodless way to talk. It's not clear why anyone should care.
These technologies don't implement poka-yoke. Which is to say, the technologies don't force you to use them completely, correctly, or to best effect.
Ian S Robinson covered similar ground in his 2010 talk The Counterintuitive Web.
In the talk I described how we can implement rich and interesting business processes in (RESTful) Web applications, but only if we think in terms of protocol resources, not coarse-grained domain resources. By embracing the Web as first and foremost a web of data, an open set of resource representations manipulated in the same-old-same-old ways using a closed set of verbs, our designs capture the behaviours most CRUD-based, data-centric applications so sorely lack.
This slide, taken from that talk, illustrates three different resource designs:
You can do all of these on HTTP, the protocol standard does not constrain you.
The design at the top of the slide has an RPC character: the business protocol is executed by sending many different messages to a single endpoint. Participation in the business protocol is limited to those components in the conversation that recognize this particular interface; in short, you can't achieve scale with out-of-the-box standard http components.
The design at the bottom has a REST character: many endpoints (resources), but the business protocol is executed by via a constrained set of messages (ie, the uniform interface) that have well specified semantics. By moving the protocol complexity from the messages to the resources, message exchange becomes business protocol agnostic -- you can achieve scale with standard components because they can participate in the exchange of representations without needing any specialization at all.
The one in the middle is Rails -- Jim Webber, 2011.
The notion of the uniform interface is critical in the success of the web; it's the constraint that allows clients (browsers, crawlers) and intermediaries (caches, reverse proxies) to develop independently of servers.
What features/constraints can be achieved with REST based API that cannot be with only HTTP based API
Fielding's thesis gives us this definition of the uniform interface:
REST is defined by four interface constraints: identification of resources; manipulation of resources through representations; self-descriptive messages; and, hypermedia as the engine of application state.
Hypermedia is huge, but it's not HTTP -- in the web stack, hypermedia support comes from HTML. It's the highest level in Richardson's model; the technology that is most often misunderstood when implementing a web service.
As Fielding (2008) bluntly clarified, this architectural constraint is *not optional:
What needs to be done to make the REST architectural style clear on the notion that hypertext is a constraint? In other words, if the engine of application state (and hence the API) is not being driven by hypertext, then it cannot be RESTful and cannot be a REST API. Period.
A REST API should be entered with no prior knowledge beyond the initial URI (bookmark) and set of standardized media types.... From that point on, all application state transitions must be driven by client selection of server-provided choices that are present in the received representations or implied by the user’s manipulation of those representations.
Fundamentally, consuming a REST API is like browsing wikipedia
Specialization and innovation depend on an open set. Note the implication: the open set is potentially changing and boundless. Change is a very real thing -- for reference, see just about any discussion of API versioning. Coupling independently developed clients to an open set of resources is completely unreasonable.
But with hypertext, can use a closed set of resources (bookmarks) to provide representations to the client that direct them to today's open set of resources, and then change the bookmarked representations tomorrow when you innovate.
It's a lot of work though -- much easier in the short term to communicate the available resources to the client out of band (ie, API documentation) which allows you to use representations that don't specify hypermedia control elements (example: application/json).
REST is intended for long-lived network-based applications that span multiple organizations. If you don’t see a need for the constraints, then don’t use them.
To give "long lived" a sense of scale -- httpd was first implemented over 25 years ago, and the cutting edge of HTTP is version 2. HTML is more volatile (and somewhat older); it is all the way up to version 5 (numbering somewhat confused by the fact that WHATWG considers HTML to be a living standard).
There are some API like Jersey JAX-RS which provide API implementation for REST based on HTTP. What extra features they add on HTTP basics?
Umm... not a lot?
That's not a particularly charitable answer, and Fielding was one of the expert members, so you are invited to take my skepticism with a grain of salt.
But here's what Marc Hadley had to say in 2008
I think the API encourages a resource-centric view and makes developers think about the identifiers of their resources and the methods they support. Declarative support for content negotiation works well and the default resource life-cycle encourages a stateless approach.
Suggestion, keep "think about the identifiers of their resources" in mind as you watch Stefan Tilkov's talk REST: I don't think it means what you think it does (slides).
Here's Marc Hadley on the weaknesses of the work
If I had to identify a weakness it would have to be limited support for hypermedia as the engine of state - whilst we provide good support for extracting information from request URIs and building URIs to resources, its still very much left to the developer to use hypermedia in representations appropriately.
Yes, generation and parsing of nicely designed URI has value. However, nicely designed identifiers are not among the REST architectural constraints. Hypermedia is.
In conclusion, if you are looking to understand the distinction between HTTP and REST, JAX-RS won't help.
In an effort to grasp the underlying purpose of a RESTful API, I've begun delving into HATEOAS.
According to that wikipedia page,
A REST client needs no prior knowledge about how to interact with any particular application or server beyond a generic understanding of hypermedia. By contrast, in a service-oriented architecture (SOA), clients and servers interact through a fixed interface shared through documentation or an interface description language (IDL).
Now, I don't really understand how that's supposed to work, unless there exists prior knowledge of what is available in an API, which decries the stated purpose of HATEOAS. In fact, tools such as Swagger exist for the express purpose of documenting RESTful APIs.
So while I understand that HATEOAS can allow a webservice to indicate the state of a resource, I am missing the link (haha) demonstrating how a client application could possibly figure out what to do with the returned follow-up links in the absence of some sort of "fixed interface".
How is HATEOAS supposed to accomplish this?
You're confusing things. Tools like Swagger don't exist for the express purpose of documenting RESTful APIs. They exist for the express purpose of documenting HTTP APIs that aren't RESTful! You need tools like that for APIs that are not hypertext driven and focus documentation on URI semantics and methods instead of media-types. All those fancy tools that generate lists of URIs and HTTP methods are exactly the opposite of what you are supposed to do in REST. To quote Roy Fielding on this matter:
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. Any
effort spent describing what methods to use on what URIs of interest
should be entirely defined within the scope of the processing rules
for a media type (and, in most cases, already defined by existing
media types). [Failure here implies that out-of-band information is
driving interaction instead of hypertext.]
http://roy.gbiv.com/untangled/2008/rest-apis-must-be-hypertext-driven
HATEOAS doesn't preclude the need for all documentation. HATEOAS allows you to focus your documentation on your media-types. Your application is supposed to conform to the underlying protocol -- HTTP, most of the time -- and the authoritative documentation on that protocol is all your clients should need for driving the interaction. But they still need to know what they are interacting with.
For instance, when you enter Stack Overflow, you know there are users, questions and answers. You need documentation on what exactly are those things, but you don't need documentation detailing what a click on a link or a button does. Your browser already knows how to drive that, and that's how it works everywhere else.
To quote another answer, REST is the architectural style of the web itself. When you enter Stack Overflow, you know what an User, a Question and an Answer are, you know the media types, and the website provides you with the links to them. A REST API has to do the same. If we designed the web the way people think REST should be done, instead of having a home page with links to Questions and Answers, we'd have a static documentation explaining that in order to view a question, you have to take the URI stackoverflow.com/questions/, replace id with the Question.id and paste that on your browser. That's nonsense, but that's what many people think REST is.
There are various answers to this question depending on the level of autonomy of the client interacting with the service ...
Lets first look at a human driven client - the browser. The browser knows nothing about banks, concerts, cats and whatever else you find on the net - but it certainly knows how to render HTML. HTML is a media type with support for hypermedia (links and forms). In this case you have a perfectly working application with a client that only understands generic hypermedia. The "fixed interface" here is HTML.
Then we have the autonomous clients or "scripted" clients that are supposed to interact with a service without human interaction. This is probably the kind of client you are thinking of when comparing REST to SOA(P). You could find such clients in integration scenarios where two independent computer system exchange data in some predefined way.
Such autonomous clients must certainly agree on something in order to interact with each other. The question is what this "something" is or is not.
In a service oriented architecture the clients agree on specific URLs/endpoints and specific "methods" to invoke on those endpoints (RPC) - this adds coupling on the URL structure used. It also forces the client to know which method to call on what service - the server cannot change URLs and it cannot move a "method" from one service to another without breaking clients.
REST/hypermedia based systems behaves differently. In such a system the client and server agrees on one common entry URL where the client can lookup (GET) a service document, at runtime, describing all the possible interactions with the server using hypermedia controls such as links or forms. These hypermedia controls informs the client about how to interact with the service (the HTTP method and payload encoding) and where to interact with the service. Which in essence means we do not have "a service" anymore but possibly many different services as the client will be told, at runtime, where and how to interact with them.
So how does the client know which hypermedia controls it should look for? It does so by agreeing on a set of identifiers the server will use to identify the relevant controls. For links this is often referred to as "link relation types".
This leads us to what kind of "something" it is that servers and clients agree on - it is 1) a hypermedia enabled media type, 2) the root service index URL, 3) the hypermedia control identifiers and 4) the payload expected for each of the controls. At runtime the client then discovers the remaining URLs, HTTP methods and payload encoding (such as JSON, XML or URL-encoded key/value pairs).
Currently there are a small set of general purpose media types for hypermedia APIs - Mason, HAL, Sirene, Collection JSON, Hydra for JSON-LD and probably a few more.
If your are interested then I have covered this topic in various blog postings:
The role of media types in RESTful web services
Media types for APIs
Selling the benefits of hypermedia in APIs
Hypermedia API documentation example
RESTful resources are not typed
I have read articles about the differences between SOAP and REST as a web service communication protocol, but I think that the biggest advantages for REST over SOAP are:
REST is more dynamic, no need to create and update UDDI(Universal Description, Discovery, and Integration).
REST is not restricted to only XML format. RESTful web services can send plain text/JSON/XML.
But SOAP is more standardized (E.g.: security).
So, am I correct in these points?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of misinformation and misconceptions around REST. Not only your question and the answer by #cmd reflect those, but most of the questions and answers related to the subject on Stack Overflow.
SOAP and REST can't be compared directly, since the first is a protocol (or at least tries to be) and the second is an architectural style. This is probably one of the sources of confusion around it, since people tend to call REST any HTTP API that isn't SOAP.
Pushing things a little and trying to establish a comparison, the main difference between SOAP and REST is the degree of coupling between client and server implementations. A SOAP client works like a custom desktop application, tightly coupled to the server. There's a rigid contract between client and server, and everything is expected to break if either side changes anything. You need constant updates following any change, but it's easier to ascertain if the contract is being followed.
A REST client is more like a browser. It's a generic client that knows how to use a protocol and standardized methods, and an application has to fit inside that. You don't violate the protocol standards by creating extra methods, you leverage on the standard methods and create the actions with them on your media type. If done right, there's less coupling, and changes can be dealt with more gracefully. A client is supposed to enter a REST service with zero knowledge of the API, except for the entry point and the media type. In SOAP, the client needs previous knowledge on everything it will be using, or it won't even begin the interaction. Additionally, a REST client can be extended by code-on-demand supplied by the server itself, the classical example being JavaScript code used to drive the interaction with another service on the client-side.
I think these are the crucial points to understand what REST is about, and how it differs from SOAP:
REST is protocol independent. It's not coupled to HTTP. Pretty much like you can follow an ftp link on a website, a REST application can use any protocol for which there is a standardized URI scheme.
REST is not a mapping of CRUD to HTTP methods. Read this answer for a detailed explanation on that.
REST is as standardized as the parts you're using. Security and authentication in HTTP are standardized, so that's what you use when doing REST over HTTP.
REST is not REST without hypermedia and HATEOAS. This means that a client only knows the entry point URI and the resources are supposed to return links the client should follow. Those fancy documentation generators that give URI patterns for everything you can do in a REST API miss the point completely. They are not only documenting something that's supposed to be following the standard, but when you do that, you're coupling the client to one particular moment in the evolution of the API, and any changes on the API have to be documented and applied, or it will break.
REST is the architectural style of the web itself. When you enter Stack Overflow, you know what a User, a Question and an Answer are, you know the media types, and the website provides you with the links to them. A REST API has to do the same. If we designed the web the way people think REST should be done, instead of having a home page with links to Questions and Answers, we'd have a static documentation explaining that in order to view a question, you have to take the URI stackoverflow.com/questions/<id>, replace id with the Question.id and paste that on your browser. That's nonsense, but that's what many people think REST is.
This last point can't be emphasized enough. If your clients are building URIs from templates in documentation and not getting links in the resource representations, that's not REST. Roy Fielding, the author of REST, made it clear on this blog post: REST APIs must be hypertext-driven.
With the above in mind, you'll realize that while REST might not be restricted to XML, to do it correctly with any other format you'll have to design and standardize some format for your links. Hyperlinks are standard in XML, but not in JSON. There are draft standards for JSON, like HAL.
Finally, REST isn't for everyone, and a proof of that is how most people solve their problems very well with the HTTP APIs they mistakenly called REST and never venture beyond that. REST is hard to do sometimes, especially in the beginning, but it pays over time with easier evolution on the server side, and client's resilience to changes. If you need something done quickly and easily, don't bother about getting REST right. It's probably not what you're looking for. If you need something that will have to stay online for years or even decades, then REST is for you.
REST vs SOAP is not the right question to ask.
REST, unlike SOAP is not a protocol.
REST is an architectural style and a design for network-based software architectures.
REST concepts are referred to as resources. A representation of a resource must be stateless. It is represented via some media type. Some examples of media types include XML, JSON, and RDF. Resources are manipulated by components. Components request and manipulate resources via a standard uniform interface. In the case of HTTP, this interface consists of standard HTTP ops e.g. GET, PUT, POST, DELETE.
#Abdulaziz's question does illuminate the fact that REST and HTTP are often used in tandem. This is primarily due to the simplicity of HTTP and its very natural mapping to RESTful principles.
Fundamental REST Principles
Client-Server Communication
Client-server architectures have a very distinct separation of concerns. All applications built in the RESTful style must also be client-server in principle.
Stateless
Each client request to the server requires that its state be fully represented. The server must be able to completely understand the client request without using any server context or server session state. It follows that all state must be kept on the client.
Cacheable
Cache constraints may be used, thus enabling response data to be marked as cacheable or not-cacheable. Any data marked as cacheable may be reused as the response to the same subsequent request.
Uniform Interface
All components must interact through a single uniform interface. Because all component interaction occurs via this interface, interaction with different services is very simple. The interface is the same! This also means that implementation changes can be made in isolation. Such changes, will not affect fundamental component interaction because the uniform interface is always unchanged. One disadvantage is that you are stuck with the interface. If an optimization could be provided to a specific service by changing the interface, you are out of luck as REST prohibits this. On the bright side, however, REST is optimized for the web, hence incredible popularity of REST over HTTP!
The above concepts represent defining characteristics of REST and differentiate the REST architecture from other architectures like web services. It is useful to note that a REST service is a web service, but a web service is not necessarily a REST service.
See this blog post on REST Design Principles for more details on REST and the above stated bullets.
EDIT: update content based on comments
SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) and REST (Representation State Transfer) both are beautiful in their way. So I am not comparing them. Instead, I am trying to depict the picture, when I preferred to use REST and when SOAP.
What is payload?
When data is sent over the Internet, each unit transmitted includes both header information and the actual data being sent. The header identifies the source and destination of the packet, while the actual data is referred to as the payload. In general, the payload is the data that is carried on behalf of an application and the data received by the destination system.
Now, for example, I have to send a Telegram and we all know that the cost of the telegram will depend on some words.
So tell me among below mentioned these two messages, which one is cheaper to send?
<name>Arin</name>
or
"name": "Arin"
I know your answer will be the second one although both representing the same message second one is cheaper regarding cost.
So I am trying to say that, sending data over the network in JSON format is cheaper than sending it in XML format regarding payload.
Here is the first benefit or advantages of REST over SOAP. SOAP only support XML, but REST supports different format like text, JSON, XML, etc. And we already know, if we use Json then definitely we will be in better place regarding payload.
Now, SOAP supports the only XML, but it also has its advantages.
Really! How?
SOAP relies on XML in three ways
Envelope – that defines what is in the message and how to process it.
A set of encoding rules for data types, and finally the layout of the procedure calls and responses gathered.
This envelope is sent via a transport (HTTP/HTTPS), and an RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is executed, and the envelope is returned with information in an XML formatted document.
The important point is that one of the advantages of SOAP is the use of the “generic” transport but REST uses HTTP/HTTPS. SOAP can use almost any transport to send the request but REST cannot. So here we got an advantage of using SOAP.
As I already mentioned in above paragraph “REST uses HTTP/HTTPS”, so go a bit deeper on these words.
When we are talking about REST over HTTP, all security measures applied HTTP are inherited, and this is known as transport level security and it secures messages only while it is inside the wire but once you delivered it on the other side you don’t know how many stages it will have to go through before reaching the real point where the data will be processed. And of course, all those stages could use something different than HTTP.So Rest is not safer completely, right?
But SOAP supports SSL just like REST additionally it also supports WS-Security which adds some enterprise security features. WS-Security offers protection from the creation of the message to it’s consumption. So for transport level security whatever loophole we found that can be prevented using WS-Security.
Apart from that, as REST is limited by it's HTTP protocol so it’s transaction support is neither ACID compliant nor can provide two-phase commit across distributed transnational resources.
But SOAP has comprehensive support for both ACID based transaction management for short-lived transactions and compensation based transaction management for long-running transactions. It also supports two-phase commit across distributed resources.
I am not drawing any conclusion, but I will prefer SOAP-based web service while security, transaction, etc. are the main concerns.
Here is the "The Java EE 6 Tutorial" where they have said A RESTful design may be appropriate when the following conditions are met. Have a look.
Hope you enjoyed reading my answer.
REST(REpresentational State Transfer)
REpresentational State of an Object is Transferred is REST i.e. we don't send Object, we send state of Object.
REST is an architectural style. It doesn’t define so many standards like SOAP. REST is for exposing Public APIs(i.e. Facebook API, Google Maps API) over the internet to handle CRUD operations on data. REST is focused on accessing named resources through a single consistent interface.
SOAP(Simple Object Access Protocol)
SOAP brings its own protocol and focuses on exposing pieces of application logic (not data) as services. SOAP exposes operations. SOAP is focused on accessing named operations, each operation implement some business logic. Though SOAP is commonly referred to as web services this is misnomer. SOAP has a very little if anything to do with the Web. REST provides true Web services based on URIs and HTTP.
Why REST?
Since REST uses standard HTTP it is much simpler in just about ever way.
REST is easier to implement, requires less bandwidth and resources.
REST permits many different data formats where as SOAP only permits XML.
REST allows better support for browser clients due to its support for JSON.
REST has better performance and scalability. REST reads can be cached, SOAP based reads cannot be cached.
If security is not a major concern and we have limited resources. Or we want to create an API that will be easily used by other developers publicly then we should go with REST.
If we need Stateless CRUD operations then go with REST.
REST is commonly used in social media, web chat, mobile services and Public APIs like Google Maps.
RESTful service return various MediaTypes for the same resource, depending on the request header parameter "Accept" as application/xml or application/json for POST and /user/1234.json or GET /user/1234.xml for GET.
REST services are meant to be called by the client-side application and not the end user directly.
ST in REST comes from State Transfer. You transfer the state around instead of having the server store it, this makes REST services scalable.
Why SOAP?
SOAP is not very easy to implement and requires more bandwidth and resources.
SOAP message request is processed slower as compared to REST and it does not use web caching mechanism.
WS-Security: While SOAP supports SSL (just like REST) it also supports WS-Security which adds some enterprise security features.
WS-AtomicTransaction: Need ACID Transactions over a service, you’re going to need SOAP.
WS-ReliableMessaging: If your application needs Asynchronous processing and a guaranteed level of reliability and security. Rest doesn’t have a standard messaging system and expects clients to deal with communication failures by retrying.
If the security is a major concern and the resources are not limited then we should use SOAP web services. Like if we are creating a web service for payment gateways, financial and telecommunication related work then we should go with SOAP as here high security is needed.
source1
source2
IMHO you can't compare SOAP and REST where those are two different things.
SOAP is a protocol and REST is a software architectural pattern. There is a lot of misconception in the internet for SOAP vs REST.
SOAP defines XML based message format that web service-enabled applications use to communicate each other over the internet. In order to do that the applications need prior knowledge of the message contract, datatypes, etc..
REST represents the state(as resources) of a server from an URL.It is stateless and clients should not have prior knowledge to interact with server beyond the understanding of hypermedia.
First of all: officially, the correct question would be web services + WSDL + SOAP vs REST.
Because, although the web service, is used in the loose sense, when using the HTTP protocol to transfer data instead of web pages, officially it is a very specific form of that idea. According to the definition, REST is not "web service".
In practice however, everyone ignores that, so let's ignore it too
There are already technical answers, so I'll try to provide some intuition.
Let's say you want to call a function in a remote computer, implemented in some other programming language (this is often called remote procedure call/RPC). Assume that function can be found at a specific URL, provided by the person who wrote it. You have to (somehow) send it a message, and get some response. So, there are two main questions to consider.
what is the format of the message you should send
how should the message be carried back and forth
For the first question, the official definition is WSDL. This is an XML file which describes, in detailed and strict format, what are the parameters, what are their types, names, default values, the name of the function to be called, etc. An example WSDL here shows that the file is human-readable (but not easily).
For the second question, there are various answers. However, the only one used in practice is SOAP. Its main idea is: wrap the previous XML (the actual message) into yet another XML (containing encoding info and other helpful stuff), and send it over HTTP. The POST method of the HTTP is used to send the message, since there is always a body.
The main idea of this whole approach is that you map a URL to a function, that is, to an action. So, if you have a list of customers in some server, and you want to view/update/delete one, you must have 3 URLS:
myapp/read-customer and in the body of the message, pass the id of the customer to be read.
myapp/update-customer and in the body, pass the id of the customer, as well as the new data
myapp/delete-customer and the id in the body
The REST approach sees things differently. A URL should not represent an action, but a thing (called resource in the REST lingo). Since the HTTP protocol (which we are already using) supports verbs, use those verbs to specify what actions to perform on the thing.
So, with the REST approach, customer number 12 would be found on URL myapp/customers/12. To view the customer data, you hit the URL with a GET request. To delete it, the same URL, with a DELETE verb. To update it, again, the same URL with a POST verb, and the new content in the request body.
For more details about the requirements that a service has to fulfil to be considered truly RESTful, see the Richardson maturity model. The article gives examples, and, more importantly, explains why a (so-called) SOAP service, is a level-0 REST service (although, level-0 means low compliance to this model, it's not offensive, and it is still useful in many cases).
Among many others already covered in the many answers, I would highlight that SOAP enables to define a contract, the WSDL, which define the operations supported, complex types, etc.
SOAP is oriented to operations, but REST is oriented at resources.
Personally I would select SOAP for complex interfaces between internal enterprise applications, and REST for public, simpler, stateless interfaces with the outside world.
Addition for:
++ A mistake that’s often made when approaching REST is to think of it as “web services with URLs”—to think of REST as another remote procedure call (RPC) mechanism, like SOAP, but invoked through plain HTTP URLs and without SOAP’s hefty XML namespaces.
++ On the contrary, REST has little to do with RPC. Whereas RPC is service oriented and focused on actions and verbs, REST is resource oriented, emphasizing the things and nouns that comprise an application.
A lot of these answers entirely forgot to mention hypermedia controls (HATEOAS) which is completely fundamental to REST. A few others touched on it, but didn't really explain it so well.
This article should explain the difference between the concepts, without getting into the weeds on specific SOAP features.
REST API
RESTful APIs are the most famous type of API. REST stands REpresentational State Transfer.
REST APIs are APIs that follow standardized principles, properties, and constraints.
You can access resources in the REST API using HTTP verbs.
REST APIs operate on a simple request/response system. You can send a request using these HTTP methods:
GET
POST
PUT
PATCH
DELETE
TRACE
OPTIONS
CONNECT
HEAD
Here are the most common HTTP verbs
GET (read existing data)
POST (create a new response or data)
PATCH (update the data)
DELETE (delete the data)
The client can make requests using HTTP verbs followed by the endpoint.
The endpoint (or route) is the URL you request for. The path determines the resource you’re requesting.
When you send a request to an endpoint, it responds with the relevant data, generally formatted as JSON, XML, plain text, images, HTML, and more.
REST APIs can also be designed with many different endpoints that return different types of data. Accessing multiple endpoints with a REST API requires various API calls.
An actual RESTful API follows the following five constraints:
Client-Server Architecture
The client requests the data from the server with no third-party interpretation.
Statelessness
Statelessness means that every HTTP request happens in complete isolation. Each request contains the information necessary to service the request. The server never relies on information from previous requests. There’s no state.
Cacheability
Responses can be explicitly or implicitly defined as cacheable or non-cacheable to improve scalability and performance. For example, enabling the cache of GET requests can improve the response times of requests for resource data.
Layering
Different layers of the API architecture should work together, creating a scalable system that is easy to update or adjust.
Uniform Interface
Communication between the client and the server must be done in a standardized language that is independent of both. This improves scalability and flexibility.
REST APIs are a good fit for projects that need to be
Flexible
Scalable
Fast
SOAP API
SOAP is a necessary protocol that helped introduce the widespread use of APIs.
SOAP is the acronym for Simple Object Access Protocol.
SOAP is a standardized protocol that relies on XML to make requests and receive responses.
Even though SOAP is based on XML, the SOAP protocol is still in wide usage.
SOAP APIs make data available as a service and are typically used when performing transactions involving multiple API calls or applications where security is the primary consideration.
SOAP was initially developed for Microsoft in 1998 to provide a standard mechanism for integrating services on the internet regardless of the operating system, object model, or programming language.
The “S” in SOAP stands for Simple, and for a good reason — SOAP can be used with less complexity as it requires less coding in the app layer for transactions, security, and other functions.
SOAP has three primary characteristics:
Extensibility of SOAP API
SOAP allows for extensions that introduce more robust features, such as Windows Server Security, Addressing, and more.
Neutrality of SOAP API
SOAP is capable of operating over a wide range of protocols, like UDP, JMS, SMTP, TCP, and HTTP.can operate.
Independence of SOAP API
SOAP API responses are purely based on XML. Therefore SOAP APIs are platform and language independent.
Developers continue to debate the pros and cons of using SOAP and REST. The best one for your project will be the one that aligns with your needs.
SOAP APIs remain a top choice for corporate entities and government organizations that prioritize security, even though REST has largely dominated web applications.
SOAP is more secure than REST as it uses WS-Security for transmission along with Secure Socket Layer
SOAP also has more excellent transactional reliability, which is another reason why SOAP historically has been favored by the banking industry and other large entities.
What is REST
REST stands for representational state transfer, it's actually an architectural style for creating Web API which treats everything(data or functionality) as recourse.
It expects; exposing resources through URI and responding in multiple formats and representational transfer of state of the resources in stateless manner. Here I am talking about two things:
Stateless manner: Provided by HTTP.
Representational transfer of state: For example if we are adding an employee. .
into our system, it's in POST state of HTTP, after this it would be in GET state of HTTP, PUT and DELETE likewise.
REST can use SOAP web services because it is a concept and can use any protocol like HTTP, SOAP.SOAP uses services interfaces to expose the business logic. REST uses URI to expose business logic.
REST is not REST without HATEOAS. This means that a client only knows the entry point URI and the resources are supposed to return links the client should follow. Those fancy documentation generators that give URI patterns for everything you can do in a REST API miss the point completely. They are not only documenting something that's supposed to be following the standard, but when you do that, you're coupling the client to one particular moment in the evolution of the API, and any changes on the API have to be documented and applied, or it will break.
HATEOAS, an abbreviation for Hypermedia As The Engine Of Application State, is a constraint of the REST application architecture that distinguishes it from most other network application architectures. The principle is that a client interacts with a network application entirely through hypermedia provided dynamically by application servers. A REST client needs no prior knowledge about how to interact with any particular application or server beyond a generic understanding of hypermedia. By contrast, in some service-oriented architectures (SOA), clients and servers interact through a fixed interface shared through documentation or an interface description language (IDL).
Reference 1
Reference 2
Although SOAP and REST share similarities over the HTTP protocol, SOAP is a more rigid set of messaging patterns than REST. The rules in SOAP are relevant because we can’t achieve any degree of standardization without them. REST needs no processing as an architecture style and is inherently more versatile. In the spirit of information exchange, both SOAP and REST depend on well-established laws that everybody has decided to abide by.
The choice of SOAP vs. REST is dependent on the programming language you are using the environment you are using and the specifications.
To answer this question it’s useful to understand the evolution of the architecture of distributed applications from simple layered architectures, to object & service based, to resources based, & nowadays we even have event based architectures. Most large systems use a combination of styles.
The first distributed applications had layered architectures. I'll assume everyone here knows what layers are. These structures are neatly organized, and can be stacks or cyclical structures. Effort is made to maintain a unidirectional data flow.
Object-based architectures evolved out of layered architectures and follow a much looser model. Here, each component is an object (often called a distributed object). The objects interact with one another using a mechanism similar to remote procedure calls - when a client binds to a distributed object it loads an implementation of the objects interface into its address space. The RPC stub can marshal a request & receive a response. Likewise the objects interface on the server is an RPC style stub. The structure of these object based systems is not as neatly organized, it looks more like an object graph.
The interface of a distributed object conceals its implementation. As with layered components, if the interface is clearly defined the internal implementation can be altered - even replaced entirely.
Object-based architectures provide the basis for encapsulating services. A service is provided by a self-contained entity, though internally it can make use of other services. Gradually object-based architectures evolved into service-oriented architectures (SOAs).
With SOA, a distributed application is composed of services. These services can be provided across administrative domains - they may be available across the web (i.e. a storage service offered by a cloud provider).
As web services became popular, and more applications started using them, service composition (combining services to form new ones) became more important. One of the problems with SOA was that integrating different services could become extremely complicated.
While SOAP is a protocol, its use implies a service oriented architecture. SOAP attempted to provide a standard for services whereby they would be composable and easily integrated.
Resource-based architectures were a different approach to solving the integration problems of SOA. The idea is to treat the distributed system as a giant collection of resources that are individually managed by components.
This led to the development of RESTful architectures. One thing that characterizes RESTful services is stateless execution. This is different than SOA where the server maintains the state.
So… how do service-specific interfaces, as provided by service-oriented architectures (including those that use SOAP) compare with resource-based architecture like REST?
While REST is simple, it does not provide a simple interface for complex communication schemes. For example, if you are required to use transactions REST is not appropriate, it is better to keep the complex state encapsulated on the server than have the client manage the transaction. But there are many scenarios where the orthogonal use of resources in RESTful architectures greatly simplifies integration of services in what would otherwise mean an explosion of service interfaces. Another tradeoff is resource-based architectures put more complexity on the client & increase traffic over the network while service-based increase the complexity of the server & tax its memory & CPU resources.
Some people have also mentioned common HTTP services or other services that do not satisfy the requirements of RESTful architecture or SOAP. These too can be categorized as either service-based or resource-based. These have the advantage of being simpler to implement. You'd only use such an approach if you knew your service will never need to be integrated across administrative domains since this makes no attempt at fixing the integration issues that arise.
These sorts of HTTP-based services, especially Pseudo-RESTful services are still the most common types. Implementing SOAP is complicated and should only be used if you really need it - i.e. you need a service that's easily integrated across domains and you want it to have a service-interface. There are still cases where this is needed. A true RESTful service is also difficult to implement, though not as difficult as SOAP.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I've implemented two REST services: Twitter and Netflix. Both times, I struggled to find the use and logic involved in the decision to expose these services as REST instead of SOAP. I hope somebody can clue me in to what I'm missing and explain why REST was used as the service implementation for services such as these.
Implementing a REST service takes infinitely longer than implementing a SOAP service. Tools exist for all modern languages/frameworks/platforms to read in a WSDL and output proxy classes and clients. Implementing a REST service is done by hand and - get this - by reading documentation. Furthermore, while implementing these two services, you have to make "guesses" as to what will come back across the pipe as there is no real schema or reference document.
Why write a REST service that returns XML anyway? The only difference is that with REST you don't know the types each element/attribute represents - you are on your own to implement it and hope that one day a string doesn't come across in a field you thought was always an int. SOAP defines the data structure using the WSDL so this is a no-brainer.
I've heard the complaint that with SOAP you have the "overhead" of the SOAP Envelope. In this day and age, do we really need to worry about a handful of bytes?
I've heard the argument that with REST you can just pop the URL into the browser and see the data. Sure, if your REST service is using simple or no authentication. The Netflix service, for instance, uses OAuth which requires you to sign things and encode things before you can even submit your request.
Why do we need a "readable" URL for each resource? If we were using a tool to implement the service, do we really care about the actual URL?
A canary in a coal mine.
I have been waiting for a question like this for close to a year now. It was inevitable that this day would come and I am sure we are going to see many more questions like this in the coming months.
The warning signs
You are absolutely correct, it does take longer to build RESTful clients than SOAP clients. The SOAP toolkits take away lots of boilerplate code and make client proxy objects available with almost no effort. With a tool like Visual Studio and a server URL I can be accessing remote objects of arbitrary complexity, locally in under five minutes.
Services that return application/xml and application/json are so annoying for client developers. What are we supposed to do with that blob of data?
Fortunately, lots of sites that provide REST services also provide a bunch of client libraries so that we can use those libraries to get access to a bunch of strongly typed objects. Seems kind of dumb though. If they had used SOAP we could have code-gen’d those proxy classes ourselves.
SOAP overhead, ha. It’s latency that kills. If people are really concerned about the number of excess bytes going across the wire then maybe HTTP is not the right choice. Have you seen how many bytes are used by the user-agent header?
Yeah, have you ever tried using a web browser as debugging tool for anything other than HTML and javascript. Trust me it sucks. You can only use two of the verbs, the caching is constantly getting in the way, the error handling swallows so much information, it’s constantly looking for a goddamn favicon.ico. Just shoot me.
Readable URL. Only nouns, no verbs. Yeah, that’s easy as long as we are only doing CRUD operations and we only need to access a hierarchy of objects in one way. Unfortunately most applications need a wee bit more functionality than that.
The impending disaster
There are a metric boatload of developers currently developing applications that integrate with REST services who are in the process of coming to the same set of conclusions that you have. They were promised simplicity, flexibility, scalability, evolvabilty and the holy grail of serendipitous reuse. The characteristics of the web itself, how can things go wrong.
However, they are finding that versioning is just as much of a problem, but the compiler doesn’t help detect issues. The hand written client code is a pain to maintain as the data structures evolve and URLs get refactored. Designing APIs around just nouns and four verbs can be really hard, especially with RESTful Url zealots telling you when you can and cannot use query strings.
Developers are going to start asking why are we wasting our effort on support both Json formats and Xml formats, why not just focus our efforts on one and do it well?
How did things go so wrong
I’ll tell you what went wrong. We as developers let the marketing departments take advantage of our primary weakness. Our eternal search for the silver bullet blinded us to the reality of what REST really is. On the surface REST seems so easy and simple. Name your resources with Urls and use GET, PUT, POST and DELETE. Hell, us devs already know how to do that, we have been dealing with databases for years that have tables and columns and SQL statements that have SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE and DELETE. It should have been a piece of cake.
There are other parts of REST that some people discuss, such as self-descriptiveness, and the hypermedia constraint, but these constraints are not so simple as resource identification and the uniform interface. The seem to add complexity where the desired goal is simplicity.
This watered down version of REST became validated in developer culture in many ways. Server frameworks were created that encouraged Resource Identification and the uniform interface, but did nothing to support the other constraints. Terms started to float around differentiating the approaches, (HI-REST vs LO-REST, Corporate REST vs Academic REST, REST vs RESTful).
A few people scream out that if you don’t apply all of the constraints it’s not REST. You will not get the benefits. There is no half REST. But those voices were labelled as religious zealots who were upset that their precious term had been stolen from obscurity and made mainstream. Jealous people who try to make REST sound more difficult than it is.
REST, the term, has definitely become mainstream. Almost every major web property that has an API supports "REST". Twitter and Netflix are two very high profile ones. The scary thing is that I can only think of one public API that is self-descriptive and there are a handful that truly implement the hypermedia constraint. Sure some sites like StackOverflow and Gowalla support links in their responses, but there are huge gaping holes in their links. The StackOverflow API has no root page. Imagine how successful the web site would have been if there was no home page for the web site!
You were misled I’m afraid
If you have made it this far, the short answer to your question is those APIs (Netflix and Twitter) do not conform to all of the constraints and therefore you will not get the benefits that REST apis are supposed to bring.
REST clients do take longer to build than SOAP clients but they are not tied to one specific service, so you should be able to re-use them across services. Take the classic example, of a web browser. How many services can a web browser access? What about a Feed Reader? Now how many different services can the average Twitter client access? Yes, just one.
REST clients are not supposed to be built to interface with a single service, they are supposed to be built to handle specific media types that could be served by any service. The obvious question to that is, how can you build a REST client for a service that delivers application/json or application/xml. Well you can’t. That’s because those formats are completely useless to a REST client. You said it yourself,
you have to make "guesses" as to what
will come back across the pipe as
there is no real schema or reference
document
You are absolutely correct for services like Twitter. However, the self-descriptive constraint in REST says that the HTTP content type header should describe exactly the content that is being transmitted across the wire. Delivering application/json and application/xml tells you nothing about the content.
When it comes to considering the performance of REST based systems it is necessary look at the bigger picture. Talking about envelope bytes is like talking about loop unwinding when comparing a quick-sort to a shell-sort. There are scenarios where SOAP can perform better, and there are scenarios where REST can perform better. Context is everything.
REST gains much of its performance advantage by being very flexible about what media types it supports and by having sophisticated support for caching. For caching to work well though nearly all of the constraints must be adhered to.
Your last point about readable urls is by far the most ironic. If you truly commit to the hypermedia constraint, then every URL could be a GUID and the client developer would lose nothing in readability.
The fact that URIs should be opaque to the client is one of the most key things when developing REST systems. Readable URLs are convenient for the server developer and well structured URLs make it easier for the server framework to dispatch requests, but those are implementation details that should have no impact on the developers consuming the API.
The Twitter API is not even close to being RESTful and that is why you are unable to see any benefit to using it over SOAP. The Netflix API is much closer but it’s use of generic media types demonstrates that failing to adhere to even a single constraint can have a profound impact on the benefits derived from the service.
It may not be all their fault
I’ve done a whole lot of dumping on the service providers, but it takes two to dance RESTfully. A service may follow all of the constraints religiously and a client can still easily undo all of the benefits.
If a client hard codes urls to access certain types of resources then it is preventing the server from changing those urls. Any kind URL construction based on implicit knowledge of how the service structures its urls is a violation.
Making assumptions about what type of representation will be returned from a link can lead to problems. Making assumptions about the content of the representation based on knowledge that is not explicitly stated in the HTTP headers is definitely going to create coupling that will cause pain in the future.
Should they have used SOAP?
Personally, I don’t think so. REST done right allows a distributed system to evolve over the long term. If you are building distributed systems that have components that are developed by different people and need to last for many years, then REST is a pretty good option.
SOAP is an object-oriented, remote procedure call technology stack. It works by building a new abstraction on top of an existing protocol (HTTP).
REST is a document oriented approach, that simply uses the features of an existing protocol (HTTP). "REST" is just a buzzword -- the concept is this: Just use the web the way it was designed to work!
In response to edits to question:
"Implementing a REST service takes infinitely longer than implementing a SOAP service."
Um, no, it can't be infinitely longer. And in cases where what you are trying to retrieve is already a document or file, it's actually much faster. For example, the OGC spec for WMS (Web Mapping Service) defines both a SOAP and REST version of the protocol, and there's a reason why almost nobody implements the SOAP version -- it's because if you're trying to get a map, it's a lot easier to just build a URL and fetch image bytes from that URL than it is to bother with encapsulating it into a SOAP message. But yes, I will agree that if the point of the web service is to transfer some strongly-typed object in a domain object model, SOAP is better suited for that use.
"Why write a REST service that returns XML anyway?"
Well, yes, that can be silly. But it depends on what the XML is. If there's a clearly defined schema for it somewhere, then there's no ambiguity. For example, you can think of WSDL URLs as being a kind of RESTful web service for retrieving information about a web service. In this case, adding the overhead of another SOAP request would be pointless.
In general, REST wins when the content that is being transferred can be thought of as a file, as a single unit. SOAP wins when the content needs to be treated as an object with members.
"I've heard the complaint that with SOAP you have the "overhead" of the SOAP Envelope. In this day and age, do we really need to worry about a handful of bytes?"
Yes. Not in every circumstance, but there are sites with a great deal of traffic where it makes a difference. Is it enough of a difference to outweigh the semantic differences of using SOAP instead of REST? I doubt it. If you're doing an object remoting protocol and the number of bytes is making a difference, SOAP is probably not the tool for you anyway -- maybe you should be using CORBA or DCOM instead.
"I've heard the argument that with REST you can just pop the URL into the browser and see the data."
Yes, and this is a large argument in favor of REST if it makes sense to view the data in a browser. For example, with image data, it's an easy way to debug the service -- just paste the URL into your browser's address bar and see what the image looks like. Or if the data returned is in XML, and you have a referenced XML stylesheet that renders into readable HTML in the browser, then you get the benefit of semantic markup and easy visualization all in one package. But you are correct, this benefit mostly evaporates when working with more complex authentication schemes. If you can't encode all your authentication information into each HTTP request, then I would argue that it doesn't count as REST at all.
"Why do we need a "readable" URL for each resource? If we were using a tool to implement the service, do we really care about the actual URL?"
Well, it depends. Why do we need readable URLs for any resource on the web? You can read Tim Berners-Lee's essay Cool URIs Don't Change for the rationale, but basically, as long as the resource may still be useful in the future, the URI for that resource should stay the same.
Obviously, for transient resources (like the "today's Money" link in the essay) there is no need for it, since the need to reference the resource goes away if the corresponding resource goes away. But for more permanent resources (like StackOverflow questions, for example, or movies on IMDB), you want to have a URL that will work forever. When you're designing a web service, you need to decide if the resources themselves could outlive your service, and if so, then REST is probably the right way to go.
For the record, yes, I've been developing web pages since well before NetFlix or Twitter existed. And no, I've not yet had any need or opportunity to implement a client to either NetFlix or Twitter's services. But even if their services are atrociously difficult to work with, that doesn't mean the technology they implemented their services on top of is bad -- only that those two implementations are bad.
To make a long story short: REST and SOAP are just tools. They each have strengths and weaknesses. If the only tool you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. So get to know both tools, and learn how to use them correctly, and then choose the right tool for each job.
An honest question deserves an honest answer. But first, why did you use the text of this question as an answer to another question if you did not think it was rhetorical in nature?
Anyway:
"Tools exist for all modern languages/frameworks/platforms to read in a WSDL and output proxy classes and clients. Implementing a REST service is done by hand by reading documentation."
Just like browser vendors have read and re-read the HTML 4.01 specification up and down to try to implement a consistent browsing experience. Have you reflected on the fact that browsers were invented long before internet banking and stackoverflow, and yet, you can use a browser to do just those things. This is made possible because of the sole reason that everybody agrees to use HTML (and related formats like CSS, JS, JPEG etc).
Blogging is actually not that new, and someone came up with AtomPub, which allows any blogging software to access and update posts in a blog, much like any web browser can access any web page. That's pretty neat, and works because of the RESTful constraints imposed by the protocol.
But for Twitter and Netflix, there is no universal agreement that "all microblogs in existence shall use the media type application/tweet", mainly because microblogging is so new. Maybe in a few years time a few microblogging services settle on the same API so that Twitter, Facebook, Identica and can interoperate. None of their existing APIs are anywhere near RESTful, however much they claim, so I don't expect it to happen real soon.
"Furthermore, while implementing these two services, you have to make "guesses" as to what will come back across the pipe as there is no real schema or reference document."
You've hit the nail on the head. REST is all about distributed and hypermedia, and that pretty much sums it up. A browser looks at what it gets from a request and shows it to the user. A HTML page usually spawns a lot more GET requests, for example CSS, scripts and images. An image is typically only rendered to the screen, JavaScript is executed, and so on. Each time, the browser does what it does because it found the link in an <img> or <style> tag and the response media type was image/jpeg or text/css.
If Twitter makes a hypermedia based API, it will probably always return an application/tweet every time you follow a link to a tweet, but the client should never assume it, and always check what it gets before acting on it.
"Why write a REST service that returns XML anyway?"
This all boils down to media types. Like HTML, if you see an element that you've no idea what actually means, the HTML spec instructs you to ignore them, and process the "body" of the tag if it has one. Likewise, the atom spec instructs you to ignore unknown elements and foreign markup (from different namespaces) and not process the body (IIRC).
Designing media types for generic problem domains (as in the HTML media type for the rich text problem domain) is very hard. Making media types for very narrow problem domains is probably a lot easier (like a tweet). But it's always a good idea to design for extensibility and specify how clients (and servers) are supposed to react when they see elements or data items that don't match the spec. JPEG, for example has an Application-specific record type (e.g. APP1) which is used to contain all sorts of meta data.
"I've heard the complaint that with SOAP you have the "overhead" of the SOAP Envelope. In this day and age, do we really need to worry about a handful of bytes?"
No, we don't. REST is absolutely not about being efficient over the wire, it's actually trading wire efficiency in. REST's efficiency comes from the possibilities of caching enabled by all the other constraints: Fielding's dissertation notes: 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. I don't think that the SOAP Envelope byte count overhead is a valid concern.
"I've heard the argument that with REST you can just pop the URL into the browser and see the data."
Yes, that's also an invalid argument. It doesn't work that way. Even if it did work, most narrow REST APIs out there use media types that browsers have no idea about and it still won't work.
But there are a lot more possibilities than a browser to test a HTTP based API, like command line utilities or browser extensions that allow you to control almost any aspect of a HTTP request, inspect response headers and discover links for you to follow. But even so, this is nowhere near as easy as generating WSDL stubs and making a three line program to call the function anyway.
"Why do we need a "readable" URL for each resource? If we were using a tool to implement the service, do we really care about the actual URL?"
If you look at how the web works, I'm pretty sure that humans are by and large glad that the URI for a wikipedia page looks like this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_overflow instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=376349090. But it actually is not important to REST. The important thing to try to get right is to choose to place relevant data in the URI that is not likely to change. You might think that the database ID will never change, but what happens when two data sets need to be merged? All your primary keys change. The page title (Stack_overflow) will not change.
Sorry for the long response, but I believe this question is valid, and hasn't been addressed before here on SO. I'm sure Darrel Miller will add his answer once he's back too.
Edit: formatting
Martin Fowler has a post on the Richardson Maturity Model which does a great job explaining the difference between SOAP and REST.
WSDL and other document level protocols are redundant. The HTTP protocol supports a much richer set of operations besides just serving documents and submitting forms.
Supporters of REST are uncomfortable with that redundancy.