For a college project i'm thinking of implementing the business layer in Erlang and then accessing it via multiple front-ends using REST. I would like to avail of OTP features like distributed applications, etc.
My question is how do I expose gen_server calls/casts to other applications? Obviously I could make RPC calls via language specific "bridges" like OTP.net or JInterface, but I want a consistent way to access it like REST.
As already mentioned Yaws or Mochiweb are a great way to go but if you'd like a dead simple way to get your RESTful API done quickly and correctly then use Webmachine. It's a layer on top of Mochiweb that implements proper HTTP behavior based on Alan Dean's amazing HTTP flow diagram and makes it easy to get REST done right.
I'm using it right now to expose a REST API as well as handle a COMET application and it's been pretty easy to do, even for an Erlang newbie such as myself.
I did something similar for my job and found it best to use REST to expose the business layer because even Legacy languages such as SoftwareAG's Natural is able to access it. The best mechanism that I have found in Erlang is to use Mochiweb.
You can find more information about using it from the screencast located at
Erlang In Practice Screencast. Episode 6 is particularly helpful but all of them are excellent.
A resource to walk you through installation is How To Quickly Set Up Ubuntu 8.04 loaded with Erlang, Mochiweb and Nginx and Migrating a native Erlang interface to RESTful Mochiweb (with a bit of TDD) provides a good start if you don't find the screencasts to your liking.
The HTTP flow diagram link is dead. The original version and a updated version created in collaboration between Alan Dean and Justin Sheehy ist also hosted in the Webmachine project: link to latest version of the HTTP Diagramm.
There is valuable approach to design gen_server calls/casts in flavor of REST if possible. You can use messages as
{get, Resource}
{set, Resource, Value} % aka PUT
{delete, Resource}
{add, Resource, Value} % aka POST (possible another names are append, modify or similar)
Then its mapping is easy. You can make some transformation URI->RESOURCE or use identity. For most of your application this should be wort approach and special cases you should handle specially. You can think there will be big margin, where you can't use this approach, but this should be mostly premature optimization.
Do you really mean a RESTful interface or RPC over HTTP? Building a RESTful interface on top of an existing layer is more work than just exposing existing methods via HTTP.
I'd suggest to use mochiweb or yaws to implement a (generic) rpc layer.
Just an update, Webmachine has moved to bitbucket: new link to Webmachine
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.
I'm really confused everytime I come around this question, what characteristics would help one choosing SOAP over REST or the other way around?
I mean, besides the fact that REST has a compact format compared to SOAP, and the other "minor" or "technical" differences, what are the "obvious" differences that make one of them more suitable for a project and not the other?
Just for the record, I have read all of the other questions (1|2|3|4) regarding this matter on Stack Overflow, and not one of them answered my question.
The difference between REST and SOAP is fundamental, yet they're not that dissimilar. Ultimately, you still need to transfer exactly the same information in order to perform a particular abstract operation. It's entirely easy to make REST rather low-performing by choosing poorly what information to return, and SOAP with MTOM can transfer large binary chunks efficiently. There's even the possibility to use non-XML encodings and connected transports (e.g., XMPP) with SOAP that can make it more efficient than REST.
So don't worry about that!
A much more relevant thing to think about is that SOAP continues to have significantly more advanced tooling support in some languages, and that other languages strongly prefer REST. For example, if you want a Java client for your service, you'll be able to get going with SOAP in minutes: just put the WSDL location through a tooling engine and you've got yourself a basic client. On the other hand, if you're working with a Javascript client then you'll absolutely prefer to deal with the REST interface; Javascript works great with REST.
A key thing to note here is that you can have your service support both SOAP and REST at once (you might need to put them on different endpoints, but that's not very onerous). I do this with a service I support (using Java and Apache CXF) and the overhead of doing both is minimal: the key is that I need a clean abstract interface behind the scenes that both the SOAP and REST interfaces use.
If you just want a simple, visual guide to help you measure SOAP and REST against your applications requirements...
Vijay Prasad Gupta has put together a simple, helpful flow-chart.
Direct link to flow chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3zMtAq1Rf-sdVFNdThvNmZWRGc/edit
Link to article:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140818062318-7933571-soap-vs-rest-flowchart-to-determine-the-right-web-services-protocol-for-your-needs
SOAP is a form of RPC and REST is architecture style that can scale with the web.
REST concerns about the following (copied from RESTful Web Services)
Addressability
Statelessness
Representations
Links and Connectedness
The Uniform Interface
Two great books on REST and have some discussions on the topic that you are interested in.
REST in Practice
Restful Web Services
I would like to create a module for the Pinboard API.
Though very similar to the old Delicious API, there are enough changes that I would like to re-implement to specifically work for Pinboard.
The Net::Delicious module was build initially in 2002 and I see that many of the newer REST best Modules are implemented in a new way. Net::Twitter, WebService::Dropbox and WWW::Vimeo::Simple seem to have different methodologies on how to implement their respective REST API.
Net::Twitter is very complex and heavy implementation in my opion. WebService::Dropbox is extremely light as is the API it implements. WWW::Vimeo::Simple seems to be between the two in terms of complexity.
I also spent some time looking at REST::Client but it probably would not be useful if you want to implement more that one or two methods.
What are the best practices for implementing a complete REST webservice? and also to test the responses without being able to connect to the service.
What you want is Net::HTTP::Spore. It's a moosy framework for REST clients in modern Perl. See also these slides
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
To describe RESTful we can say that every resource has its own URI. Using HTTP GET, POST, PUT and DELETE, we can operate on these resources. All resources are representational. Whoever wants to use our resources can do so via a browser or REST client.
That's the main idea of a RESTful architecture. This architecture allows services on the internet. So why does this architecture need WADL? What does WADL offer that standard HTTP does not? Why does WADL need to exist?
The purpose of WADL is to define a contract. Contract specifies how one party can call another.
When you create a web application from scratch, you don't need contract and WADL.
When you integrate your system with the other system and you can communicate clearly with their development team, you don't need contract and WADL (because you can make a phone call to make things clear).
However when you integrate a complex enterprise system with several others complex enterprise systems maintained by several different companies (or federal institutions), then believe me you want to have a communication contract defined as strictly as possible. Then you need WADL or Open Specification. Need it badly.
People with weak enterprise background tend to see entire IT as a collection of separated web applications developed independently. But enterprise reality is sometimes tough. Sometimes you can't even call or write to the people developing the application you have to integrate with. Sometimes you communicate with a legacy application that is no longer maintained--it just runs and you need to figure out how to communicate with it properly. In such conditions you need a contract because it saves your ass.
Actually client generation is the minor feature of the contract definition. It's just a toy. Contract enforces bad communicators to communicate integration rules clearly. This is the main reason to use WADL or Open Specification or whatever.
Using WADL implies that you just might be gracious enough to actually define the data / documents you are passing back and forth. Say you are passing some XML fragments, they might actually be part of a defined schema.
Whether or not you use the DL to generate code is not very important to me. What matters, in my subjective opinion, is that it is important to have a formal agreement on interfaces between business partners. Even if what is passed is obvious, it helps to identify who has to fix what later if somebody changes the previous interface.
Data format is just as much a part of an interface as verb names.
WADL appeals to people coming from the SOAP world where it is common to use a code generator to create client side code based on the WSDL. I don't think that mechanism is useful in REST as it creates client code that is coupled to server endpoints.
I believe that if you properly define your media-types and use hypermedia within those media-types, then it is not necessary to have WADL. The description of the available end-points is contained within the media-type definitions themselves. And if you are now saying to yourself, but application/xml doesn't contain any information about available hyperlinks, then I say BINGO. That's why I don't think application/xml and application/json are appropriate media-types for REST. I'm not saying don't use XML or JSON, just don't use the generic media type name.
The other appeal of WADL is for the purpose of documenting REST services. Unfortunately, it leads developers down the wrong path as WADL attempts to document server-side end points. Documenting a REST services should focus primarily on the media-types. A client developer should be able to write a REST client without knowing any url other than the root url.
WADL allows you to generate code, tests and documentation. Actually there are few very useful tools utilizing WADL, you can see some examples here. The problem with the "pure" REST, as described in Fielding's dissertation, is writing clients supporting Hypermedia (imagine writing Java Swing-based client application for example). With WADL this task is completely automated, and it's a huge advantage in my view. Testing becomes a way easier too.
Before I give my explanation, let me say that most pure REST extremists will deride it to the ends of the earth. I don't agree with them, as i'd rather get something done, but just so you know.
WADL is a description of a web service API, a little like WSDL is for SOAP type web services, that is designed to be more in tune with RESTful interfaces (something WSDL is poor at).
It's primary usage in my experience is to allow you to generate client code that can call the service (handy if it's a very large API, which literally saves hours of work). It also serves the purpose of documenting a REST-like interface.
REST specifies nothing about WADL.
When you want to expose the REST services ,the best way is to generate WADL and share with consumer(similar to WSDL in SOAP based web services).WADL is used to describe service all in on place.
WADL is not necessary to use. But, If you are working with complex existing application and you want to implement REST service call by replacing the EJB/SOAP service call, Then it is very safe and good practice that you use WADL. By using WADL generate client side java stubs you will be in sync with the service.
You can generate client side java stub using WADL file with help of wadl2java maven plugin.