Is there a way to use a webservice (REST in this case) as the data source for a Lift application? I can find a number of tutorials/examples of using Lift to provide the REST API, but in my case the data is hosted elsewhere and exported as a REST webservice. Pointers to doc are greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Jeff
This is not related to Lift in fact. There is a lot of different pieces of information already:
HttpClient library as was suggested already,
or Dispatch Scala library for accessing HTTP services
information on how to cache data in Scala in various ways in case you need it
Think about caching thoroughly, it is generally a good choice if your application generates a lot of requests and you can afford caching. Caching will let you achieve many goals:
decrease response time, as you do not depend on the remote service (if you do synchronous data processing)
avoid Denial of Service in case the remote service dies. Otherwise your application will generate many sockets to read data and exhaust resources (either sockets or threads or something else)
do not exceed SLA of the remote service, as many services constrain the number of requests you are allowed to pefrorm per some unit of time.
So you can just sit and put these things together, that's it.
If you really want to be fancy, you can create a Record implementation for a REST-based data source. There's already one of these in existence that works with CouchDB. Using the lift-couchdb module, the interactions with CouchDB are abstracted away and all you deal with is the Scala code. There is a short wiki page with instructions on how to get started with lift-couchdb here:
http://www.assembla.com/wiki/show/liftweb/CouchDB
The pertinent source code files are available here:
http://github.com/lift/lift/tree/master/framework/lift-persistence/lift-couchdb/src/main/scala/net/liftweb/couchdb/
Using the Record interface gives you access to lots of Traits which you use to provide functionality with minimal code-writing such as creating HTML forms, providing lifecycle based calls, and easy hooks for validation.
I've put a scala layer over HttpClient and then use that. I've been meaning to put this on github for some time.
I use Dispatch (which is a wrapper around HttpClient) for making REST calls. Looks nice and simple
Related
If I develop Booking REST service in Golang (i.e., in package booking). Is it a "GO way" to create BookingClient interface (backed up by struct) with business operations allowed, so that clients of my restful service would use BookingClient (imported from package booking) instead of sending http requests directly?
In general, no – if you provide a client in a particular language it'd only be a convenience, so (some) users can use your API easier. This of course assumes your client is well designed. I wouldn't provide merely an interface in Go just to indicate a set of possible API calls. This would be beneficial to a very narrow range of audience, probably for people developing a client for your API themselves, in programming language which just happened to be the same as implementation of your server. And even then they might not really like the idea of using the interface (e.g. they might only need a specific set of methods).
If you want to provide a client for your API, go ahead, do it, but separate it from the actual server (different package, maybe even different repo). In general one develops APIs over HTTP to allow for wide range of clients to access it, which could be written in any language. Instead of providing some interfaces I would invest my time in writing a good documentation.
In my opinion the answer to your question, assuming there is no more context provided, should be no different if you asked yourself if you should provide a client in, say, Python. The whole situation might change though if, for example, your API is used internally by your company and you develop mainly in Go.
It's usually preferable to do this, and most companies do, but provide documentation for working directly with the API. The main use case for that is people working with different languages than the ones you intended.
You can have a look at a new RESTful framework I wrote, that includes infrastructure to automatically compile clients with Go templates, although I haven't gotten to writing a Go client compiler. If you want to write one it would be greatly appreciated :) https://github.com/EverythingMe/vertex
Testing is important in Go, so writing testable code is something you should do. If you use direct http requests you will have a harder time writing unit tests, compared to using a mocked struct.
Is there any reason to use a Client rather than calling the functions that call the REST endpoints? It's usually harder to mock a bigger thing, such as a Client struct, rather than a group of small functions.
You should put the client at booking.Client to avoid repeating yourself (booking.BookingClient) and maybe rename Client to something more descriptive.
this is a general 'what technologies are available' question.
My company provides a web application with a RESTful API. However, it is too slow for my needs and some of the results are in an awkward format.
I want to wrap their restful server with a proxy/adapter server, so when you connect to the proxy you get the RESTful API I wish the real one provides.
So it needs to do a few things:
passthrough most requests
cache some requests
do some extra requests on the original server to detect if a request is cacheable
for instance: there is a request for a field in a record: GET /records/id/field which might be slow, but there is a fingerprint request GET /records/id/fingerprint which is always fast. If there exists a cache of GET /records/1/field2 for the fingerprint feedbeef, then I need to check the original server still has the fingerprint feed beef before serving the cached version.
fix headers for some responses - e.g. content-type, based upon the path
do stream processing on some large content, for instance
GET /records/id/attachments/1234
returns a 100Mb log file in text format
remove null characters from files
optionally recode the log to filter out irrelevant lines, reducing the load on the client
cache the filtered version for later requests.
While I could modify the client to achieve this functionality, such code would not be re-usable for other clients (different languages), and complicates the client logic.
I had a look at whether clojure/ring could do it, and while there is a nice little proxy middleware for it, it doesn't handle streaming content as far as I can tell - the whole 100Mb would have to be downloaded. Also it doesn't include any cache logic yet.
I took a look at whether squid could do it, but I'm not familiar with the technology, and it seems mostly concerned with passing through requests rather than modifying them on the fly.
I'm looking for hints where I might find the correct technology to implement this. I'm mostly language agnostic if learning a new language gets me access to a really simple way to do it.
I believe you should choose a platform that is easier for you to implement your custom business logic on. The following web application frameworks provide easy connectivity with REST APIs, and allow you to create a web application that could work as a REST proxy:
Play framework (Java + Scala)
express + Node.js (Javascript)
Sinatra (Ruby)
I'm more familiar with Play, of which I know it provides utilities for caching you could find useful, and is also extendable by a number of plugins.
If you are familiar with Scala, you could have a also have a look at Finagle. It is a framework build be Twitter's infrastructure team to provide protocol-agnostic connectivity. It might be an overkill for REST to REST proxy, but it provides abstractions you might find useful.
You could also look at some 3rd party services like Apitools, which allows to create a proxy programmatically (in lua). Apirise is a similar service (of which I'm a co-founder) that intends to do provide similar functionalities with a user-friendly UI.
Beeceptor does exactly what you want. It plugs in-between your web-app and original API to route requests.
For your use-case of caching a few responses, you can create a rule. That way it shall not hit the original endpoint.
The requests to original APIs can be mocked, and you can inspect response
You can simulate delays.
(Note: it is a shameless plug, I am the author of Beeceptor and thought it should help you and other developers.)
https://github.com/nodejitsu/node-http-proxy is looking useful - although I don't yet know if it can stream process for transcoding.
I am evaluating if there is a performance variation between calls made using GWT-RPC and HTTP Call.
My appln services are hosted as Java servlets and I am currently using HTTPProxy connections to fetch data from them. I am looking to convert them to GWT-RPC calls if that brings in performance improvement.
I would like to know about pros/cons of each...
Also any suggestions on tools to measure performance of Async calls...
[A good article on various Server communication strategies which can be employed with GWT.]
GWT-RPC is generally preferred when the backend is also written in Java because it means not having to encode and decode the object at each end -- you can just transmit a regular Java object to the client, and use it there.
JSON (using RequestBuilder) is generally used when the backend is written in some other language, and requires the server to JSON-encode the response object and the client to JSON-decode it into a JavaScriptObject for use in the GWT code.
If I had to guess I'd say that GWT-RPC also results in smaller transport objects because the GWT team optimizes for this case, but either will work, and JSON can still be pretty small. It just comes down to a matter of developer convenience in most cases.
As for tools to measure request time, you can either use Chrome/Webkit's developer tools, or Firefox's Firebug extension, or measure request time in your app and send that metrics data back to your server in a deferred request for collection and analysis.
I wrote that article mentioned in the question (thanks for the link!).
As always, the answer is 'it depends'. I've used both GWT-RPC and JSON.
As outlined above, GWT-RPC allows for some serious productivity in shipping java objects (with some limits) over the wire. Some logic can be shared, and GWT takes care of marshalling/unmarshalling your object.
JSON allows for cross domain access and consumption by other, non GWT clients. You can get by with overlay types, but no behavior (like validation) can be shared. JSON can also be easily compressed and cached, unlike GWT-RPC (last time I looked).
Since we have no idea what the payload is, performance recommendations are hard to give. I'd recommend (again, as someone does above) testing yourself.
Just an addition to the other answers, there's one point to consider which could influence your decision towards JSON, even if you're using Java on the back-end:
Maybe sometime in the future, you want to allow non-GWT clients to talk to your server. Many modern sites offer some kind of API access, and if you're using JSON, you basically already have a comparatively open API.
In general I agree with Jason - if your server side uses Java, go with GWT-RPC. You'll be able to reuse the POJOs, validation logic, etc. RPC also tends to "play" better with MVP and code-splitting.
However, if your server side uses anything else use JSON - but don't fret, with JavaScript Overlay Types using JSON is a breeze. You won't be able to reuse the code from client side on the server, though (YMMV).
From a performance point of view - I'd say that JSON has the edge here. Modern browsers have some seriously good methods for fast encoding/decoding for JSON. I'm not sure what GWT-RPC is "behind the scenes", but I doubt it can beat JSON when it comes to speed. As for the payload - that depends on the developer (the names of the objects in JSON, etc), but I'd say that in general JSON is also (marginably) smaller. Enable compression on your server (for example, mod_deflate on Apache HTTP) to squeeze the bits even more ;)
I am working on a web application which needs to get data from some local and some non local resources and then display it. As it could take arbitrary amount of time to get the data from these resources I am thinking of using the actors concept so that each actor is responsible for getting data from the respective resource. The request thread will wait for each actor to finish its task and then use ajax to update only the portion of the web page that is dependent on that data. This way user will start seeing the data as soon as it is received rather than wait for all of them to finish and then get a first look at the data.
I am planning to look into scala/lift framework for this. I have read some articles on the web for scala/lift and want to explore if this is the correct way to approach this problem and also if scala/lift is good platform of choice. I have worked in Java and C# previously. Any opinions, comments, suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
gary
Take a look a message queue technology like Java's JMS. Message queues allow you to handle long running background tasks asynchronously and reliably. This is the technique sites like Flickr and YouTube use to do media transcoding asynchronously. You can use a Java EE server, or a JMS technology like Apache's ActiveMQ, and then layer your Scala/Lift code on top of it.
Richard Monson-Haefel's book on JMS covers it well.
For more general help with web site scaling and construction, take a look at Todd Hoff's excellent blog, highscalability.com/. There are some good pointers to using message queues to offload long-running tasks this way.
BTW, Twitter uses Scala for something much like what you're considering. Here's an interview with some of their developers; they describe one way they use Scala:
Robey Pointer: A lot of our architecture is based on letting Rails do what it does best, which is the AJAX, the web front ends, the website—what the user sees. Anything we can offload out of the request/response cycle, we do. So we queue those tasks into a messaging system and have back-end daemons handle them.
If the non-local resources originate at some other service or system, Event Driven Architecture might work for you. Instead of pulling from the non-local resources you could set up this web-application as a subscriber to the events published by these services. Upon receiving a message regarding part of its functionality it would cache locally the data it's interested in. This should let you escape the issue of asynchronous update of parts of the page (all data would be accessible locally).
Udi Dahan blogs about this approach a lot and is also an author of a .NET message bus (NServiceBus) that can be used in such scenarios. See for example http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/architecture/aa699424.aspx
Actors would be a way to go. You're essentially setting up a light weight version of JMS. And Lift does the comet stuff very well.
In addition to the Scala actors, and the Lift Actors, you also have akka actors. When Scala Swarm becomes production ready you'll be ready for that too.
If the delayed information is distinct from the information that needs to display immediately, with Lift you can use a LazyLoad snippet that has the longer-running computation (calling the web service) as part of its logic. Lift will take care of inserting it into the page when its ready.
I am working on a experimental website (which is accessible through web browser) that will act as a front-end to a restful interface (a sub-system). The website will serve as an interface between a user and the restful interface, as it will make http requests to the restful interface for almost all database operations. Authentication will probably be done using openid and authorization for the database operations will be done via oAuth.
Just out of curiousity, is this a feasible solution or I should develop two systems that accesses the database in parallel (i.e. the website has its own data access logic, and the restful interface has another data access logic)? And what are the pros/cons if I insist on doing it this way (it is just an experiment project for me to learn things like how OpenID and oAuth work in real life anyway) besides there will be more database queries and http requests generated for each transaction?
Your concept sounds quite feasible. I'd say that you'll get some fairly good wins out of this approach. For starters you'll get a large degree of code reuse since you'll be able to put other front ends on top of the RESTful service. Additionally, you'll be able to unit test this architecture with relative ease. Finally, you'll be able to give 3rd party developers access to the same API that you use (subject possibly to some restrictions) which will be a huge win when it comes to attracting customers and developers to your platform.
On the down side, depending on how you structure your back end you could run into the standard problem of granularity. Too much granularity and you'll end up making lots of connections for very little amounts of data. Too little and you'll get more data than you need in some cases. As for security, you should be able to lock down the back end so that requests can only be made under certain conditions: requests contain an authorization token, api key, etc.
Sounds good, but I'd recommend that you do this only if you plan to open up the restful API for other UI's to use, or simply to learn something cool. Support HTML XML and JSON for the interface.
Otherwise, use a great MVC framework instead (asp.net MVC, rails, cakephp). You'll end up with the same basic result but you'll be "strongerly" typed to the database.
with a modern javascript library your approach is quite straightforward.
ExtJS now has always had Ajax support, but it is now able to do this via a REST interface.
So, your ExtJS user interface components populate receive a URL. They populate themselves via a GET to the URL, and store update via POST to the URL.
This has worked really well on a project I'm currently working on. By applying RESTful principles there's an almost clinical separation between the front & backends - meaning it would be trivial undertaking to replace other. Plus, the API barely needs documenting, since it's an implementation of an existing mature standard.
Good luck,
Ian
woow! A question from 2009! And it's funny to read the answers. Many people seem to disagree with the web services approach and JS front end - which has nowadays become kind of standard, known as Single Page Applications..
I think the general approach you outline is quite feasible -- the main pro is flexibility, the main con is that it won't protect clueless users against their own ((expletive deleted)) abuses. As most users are likely to be clueless, this isn't feasible for mass consumption... but, it's fine for really leet users!-)
So to clarify, you want to have your web UI call into your web service, which in turn calls into the database?
This is exactly the path I took for a recent project and I think it was a mistake because you end up creating a lot of extra work. Here's why:
When you are coding your web service, you will create a library to wrap database calls, which is typical. No problem there.
But then when you code your web UI, you will end up creating another library to wrap calls into the REST interface... because otherwise it will get cumbersome making all the raw HTTP calls.
So you essentially created 2 data access libraries, one to wrap DB and the other to wrap the Web service calls. This basically doubles the amount of work you do, because for every operation on a resource, you will end up implementing in both libraries. This gets tiring real fast.
The simpler alternative is to create a single library that wraps access to the database, as before, then use that library from BOTH the web UI and web service.
This is assuming that your web UI and web service reside on the same network and both have direct access to the backend database server (which was the case for me). In this setup having both go directly to the database is also a lot more efficient then having the UI go through the web service.