I am making a Blackjack rest service, and currently have 4 GET endpoints:
/hit
/stand
/double down
/surrender
I could also make just 1 POST/PATCH endpoint that uses a dto to send a move, or should I keep
using these four uri's?
Which option would be more restful/better?
Thanks in advance.
Use one endpoint. All of these actions/commands are working with the same set of data.
I'd suggest having a single REST endpoint that takes a RequestBody and returns links as part of the response.
When links are returned as part of response, we are implementing HATEOS which increases the RESTfulness of the API. (reaches Level 3 of Richardson's Maturity Model)
Client can understand the links received as part of the response and can take next step of actions accordingly. This prevents the client from having to make multiple REST calls just to accomplish one task as a whole.
(Personal Development experience) If we maintain too many REST APIs, especially GET APIs, code maintenance increases overtime. Also, it is not extensible in nature, i.e. if a new requirement comes up and we do not have a DTO then we have to define multiple new endpoints. On the other hand, if we have a less number of endpoints with a DTO, we have the flexibility to enhance the DTO itself to have attributes that can help us achieve the new functionality.
For further reading, this is a good article on REST.
After having read a lot of material on REST versioning, I am thinking of versioning the calls instead of the API. For example:
http://api.mydomain.com/callfoo/v2.0/param1/param2/param3
http://api.mydomain.com/verifyfoo/v1.0/param1/param2
instead of first having
http://api.mydomain.com/v1.0/callfoo/param1/param2
http://api.mydomain.com/v1.0/verifyfoo/param1/param2
then going to
http://api.mydomain.com/v2.0/callfoo/param1/param2/param3
http://api.mydomain.com/v2.0/verifyfoo/param1/param2
The advantage I see are:
When the calls change, I do not have to rewrite my entire client - only the parts that are affected by the changed calls.
Those parts of the client that work can continue as is (we have a lot of testing hours invested to ensure both the client and the server sides are stable.)
I can use permanent or non-permanent redirects for calls that have changed.
Backward compatibility would be a breeze as I can leave older call versions as is.
Am I missing something? Please advise.
Require an HTTP header.
Version: 1
The Version header is provisionally registered in RFC 4229 and there some legitimate reasons to avoid using an X- prefix or a usage-specific URI. A more typical header was proposed by yfeldblum at https://stackoverflow.com/a/2028664:
X-API-Version: 1
In either case, if the header is missing or doesn't match what the server can deliver, send a 412 Precondition Failed response code along with the reason for the failure. This requires clients to specify the version they support every single time but enforces consistent responses between client and server. (Optionally supporting a ?version= query parameter would give clients an extra bit of flexibility.)
This approach is simple, easy to implement and standards-compliant.
Alternatives
I'm aware that some very smart, well-intentioned people have suggested URL versioning and content negotiation. Both have significant problems in certain cases and in the form that they're usually proposed.
URL Versioning
Endpoint/service URL versioning works if you control all servers and clients. Otherwise, you'll need to handle newer clients falling back to older servers, which you'll end up doing with custom HTTP headers because system administrators of server software deployed on heterogeneous servers outside of your control can do all sorts of things to screw up the URLs you think will be easy to parse if you use something like 302 Moved Temporarily.
Content Negotiation
Content negotiation via the Accept header works if you are deeply concerned about following the HTTP standard but also want to ignore what the HTTP/1.1 standard documents actually say. The proposed MIME Type you tend to see is something of the form application/vnd.example.v1+json. There are a few problems:
There are cases where the vendor extensions are actually appropriate, of course, but slightly different communication behaviors between client and server doesn't really fit the definition of a new 'media type'. Also, RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) reads, "Media-type values are registered with the Internet Assigned Number Authority. The media type registration process is outlined in RFC 1590. Use of non-registered media types is discouraged." I don't want to see a separate media type for every version of every software product that has a REST API.
Any subtype ranges (e.g., application/*) don't make sense. For REST APIs that return structured data to clients for processing and formatting, what good is accepting */* ?
The Accept header takes some effort to parse correctly. There's both an implied and explicit precedence that should be followed to minimize the back-and-forth required to actually do content negotiation correctly. If you're concerned about implementing this standard correctly, this is important to get right.
RFC 2616 (HTTP/1.1) describes the behavior for any client that does not include an Accept header: "If no Accept header field is present, then it is assumed that the client accepts all media types." So, for clients you don't write yourself (where you have the least control), the most correct thing to do would be to respond to requests using the newest, most prone-to-breaking-old-versions version that the server knows about. In other words, you could have not implemented versioning at all and those clients would still be breaking in exactly the same way.
Edited, 2014:
I've read a lot of the other answers and everyone's thoughtful comments; I hope I can improve on this with the benefit of a couple of years of feedback:
Don't use an 'X-' prefix. I think Accept-Version is probably more meaningful in 2014, and there are some valid concerns about the semantics of re-using Version raised in the comments. There's overlap with defined headers like Content-Version and the relative opaqueness of the URI for sure, and I try to be careful about confusing the two with variations on content negotiation, which the Version header effectively is. The third 'version' of the URL https://example.com/api/212315c2-668d-11e4-80c7-20c9d048772b is wholly different than the 'second', regardless of whether it contains data or a document.
Regarding what I said above about URL versioning (endpoints like https://example.com/v1/users, for instance) the converse probably holds more truth: if you control all servers and clients, URL/URI versioning is probably what you want. For a large-scale service that could publish a single service URL, I would go with a different endpoint for every version, like most do. My particular take is heavily influenced by the fact that the implementation as described above is most commonly deployed on lots of different servers by lots of different organizations, and, perhaps most importantly, on servers I don't control. I always want a canonical service URL, and if a site is still running the v3 version of the API, I definitely don't want a request to https://example.com/v4/ to come back with their web server's 404 Not Found page (or even worse, 200 OK that returns their homepage as 500k of HTML over cellular data back to an iPhone app.)
If you want very simple /client/ implementations (and wider adoption), it's very hard to argue that requiring a custom header in the HTTP request is as simple for client authors as GET-ting a vanilla URL. (Although authentication often requires your token or credentials to be passed in the headers, anyway. Using Version or Accept-Version as a secret handshake along with an actual secret handshake fits pretty well.)
Content negotiation using the Accept header is good for getting different MIME types for the same content (e.g., XML vs. JSON vs. Adobe PDF), but not defined for versions of those things (Dublin Core 1.1 vs. JSONP vs. PDF/A). If you want to support the Accept header because it's important to respect industry standards, then you won't want a made-up MIME Type interfering with the media type negotiation you might need to use in your requests. A bespoke API version header is guaranteed not to interfere with the heavily-used, oft-cited Accept, whereas conflating them into the same usage will just be confusing for both server and client. That said, namespacing what you expect into a named profile per 2013's RFC6906 is preferable to a separate header for lots of reasons. This is pretty clever, and I think people should seriously consider this approach.
Adding a header for every request is one particular downside to working within a stateless protocol.
Malicious proxy servers can do almost anything to destroy HTTP requests and responses. They shouldn't, and while I don't talk about the Cache-Control or Vary headers in this context, all service creators should carefully consider how their content is consumed in lots of different environments.
This is a matter of opinion; here's mine, along with the motivation behind the opinion.
include the version in the URL.
For those who say, it belongs in the HTTP header, I say: maybe. But putting in the URL is the accepted way to do it according to the early leaders in the field. (Google, yahoo, twitter, and more). This is what developers expect and doing what developers expect, in other words acting in accordance with the principle of least astonishment, is probably a good idea. It absolutely does not make it "harder for clients to upgrade". If the change in URL somehow represents an obstacle to the developer of a consuming application, as suggested in a different answer here, that developer needs to be fired.
Skip the minor version
There are plenty of integers. You're not gonna run out. You don't need the decimal in there. Any change from 1.0 to 1.1 of your API shouldn't break existing clients anyway. So just use the natural numbers. If you like to use separation to imply larger changes, you can start at v100 and do v200 and so on, but even there I think YAGNI and it's overkill.
Put the version leftmost in the URI
Presumably there are going to be multiple resources in your model. They all need to be versioned in synchrony. You can't have people using v1 of resource X, and v2 of resource Y. It's going to break something. If you try to support that it will create a maintenance nightmare as you add versions, and there's no value add for the developer anyway. So, http://api.mydomain.com/v1/Resource/12345 , where Resource is the type of resource, and 12345 gets replaced by the resource id.
You didn't ask, but...
Omit verbs from your URL path
REST is resource oriented. You have things like "CallFoo" in your URL path, which looks suspiciously like a verb, and unlike a noun. This is wrong. Use the Force, Luke. Use the verbs that are part of REST: GET PUT POST DELETE and so on. If you want to get the verification on a resource, then do GET http://domain/v1/Foo/12345/verification. If you want to update it, do POST /v1/Foo/12345.
Put optional params as a query param or payload
The optional params should not be in the URL path (before the first question mark) unless you are suggesting that those optional params constitute a self-standing resource. So, POST /v1/Foo/12345?action=partialUpdate¶m1=123¶m2=abc.
Don't do either of those things, because they push the version into the URI structure, and that's going to have downsides for your client applications. It will make it harder for them to upgrade to take advantage of new features in your application.
Instead, you should version your media types, not your URIs. This will give you maximum flexibility and evolutionary ability. For more information, see this answer I gave to another question.
I like using the profile media type parameter:
application/json; profile="http://www.myapp.com/schema/entity/v1"
More Info:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6906
http://buzzword.org.uk/2009/draft-inkster-profile-parameter-00.html
It depends on what you call versions in your API, if you call versions to different representations (xml, json, etc) of the entities then you should use the accept headers or a custom header. That is the way http is designed for working with representations. It is RESTful because if I call the same resource at the same time but requesting different representations, the returned entities will have exactly the same information and property structure but with different format, this kind of versioning is cosmetic.
In the other hand if you understand 'versions' as changes in entity structure, for example adding a field 'age' to the 'user' entity. Then you should approach this from a resource perspective which is in my opinion the RESTful approach. As described by Roy Fielding in his disseration ...a REST resource is a mapping from an identifier to a set of entities... Therefore makes sense that when changing the structure of an entity you need to have a proper resource that points to that version. This kind of versioning is structural.
I made a similar comment in: http://codebetter.com/howarddierking/2012/11/09/versioning-restful-services/
When working with url versioning the version should come later and not earlier in the url:
GET/DELETE/PUT onlinemall.com/grocery-store/customer/v1/{id}
POST onlinemall.com/grocery-store/customer/v1
Another way of doing that in a cleaner way but which could be problematic when implementing:
GET/DELETE/PUT onlinemall.com/grocery-store/customer.v1/{id}
POST onlinemall.com/grocery-store/customer.v1
Doing it this way allows the client to request specifically the resource they want which maps to the entity they need. Without having to mess with headers and custom media types which is really problematic when implementing in a production environment.
Also having the url late in the url allows the clients to have more granularity when choosing specifically the resources they want, even at method level.
But the most important thing from a developer perspective, you don't need to maintain the whole mappings (paths) for every version to all the resources and methods. Which is very valuable when you have lot of sub-resources (embedded resources).
From an implementation perspective having it at the level of resource is really easy to implement, for example if using Jersey/JAX-RS:
#Path("/customer")
public class CustomerResource {
...
#GET
#Path("/v{version}/{id}")
public IDto getCustomer(#PathParam("version") String version, #PathParam("id") String id) {
return locateVersion(version, customerService.findCustomer(id));
}
...
#POST
#Path("/v1")
#Consumes(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
public IDto insertCustomerV1(CustomerV1Dto customer) {
return customerService.createCustomer(customer);
}
#POST
#Path("/v2")
#Consumes(MediaType.APPLICATION_JSON)
public IDto insertCustomerV2(CustomerV2Dto customer) {
return customerService.createCustomer(customer);
}
...
}
IDto is just an interface for returning a polymorphic object, CustomerV1 and CustomerV2 implement that interface.
Facebook does verisoning in the url. I feel url versioning is cleaner and easier to maintain as well in the real world.
.Net makes it super easy to do versioning this way:
[HttpPost]
[Route("{version}/someCall/{id}")]
public HttpResponseMessage someCall(string version, int id))
I'm trying to make an app that connects to Fitbit via OAuth2 using spring-social. I've had some troubles with this but I think I'm figuring things out. I notice that the OAuth process is initiated by making a POST to the ConnectController. Why is this done with a POST rather than a GET? I'd like to make it so that I can drop a link into a chatroom that the user can click to authorize my app to use their Fitbit information, which means that I'd like to start things off with a GET. Is there a reason why this isn't done? If I were to make changes to this effect (by subclassing ConnectController) would I run into technical/security problems?
There are 2 reasons:
The primary reason is that GET requests are expected to perform operations that are both safe and idempotent. But as a result of that request, you may (in the case of OAuth 1.0(a)) end up obtaining and possibly storing a request token as well as initializing the OAuth dance with the provider. This is not considered "safe" in the terms of a safe request. Moreover, it may or may not be idempotent, as repeating the request may result in a different behavior (depending the the provider's implementation of OAuth). While this may not apply to OAuth 2, it needed to be consistent between OAuth 1 and OAuth 2.
The /connect/{provider} path represents a single resource. There are only so many HTTP verbs to choose from without resorting to putting verbs into the path. The GET method for that path is already assigned to the request to fetch connection status for that provider (an operation which is both safe and idempotent).
Even so, I've encountered the use-case you're asking about. What I've done when I feel the need to have a link that kicks off the OAuth flow is to have a form that POSTs to /connect/{provider} and have some Javascript that submits the form for me, either as the result of a direct link (if the link is on a page in the app) or as the result of page load (if the link is to be given in an email or chatroom).
You're also certainly welcome to override ConnectController's behavior or even write your own implementation of the controller to meet your needs, even if they violate the reasoning behind why ConnectController is implementation the way it is.
I am currently using a #POST web service to retrieve data.
My idea, at the beginning, was to pass a map of parameters. Then my function, on the server side, would take care of reading the needed parameters in the map and return the response.
This is to prevent having a big number of function almost identical on the server side.
But if I understood correctly, #POST should be use for creation of content.
So my question: Is it a big programming mistake to use #POST for data retrieval?
Is it better to create 1 web service per use case, even if it is a lot?
Thanks.
Romain.
POST is used to say that you are submitting data.
GET requests can be bookmarked, POST can't. Before there were single page web appliations we used post-redirect-get to accepta data submission and display a bookmakable page.
If you use POST to retrieve data then web-caching doesn't work, because the caching code doesn't cache POSTS, it expects POST to mean it needs to invalidate its cache. If you split your services out use-case-wise and use GET then you can have something like Squid cache the responses.
You may not need to implement caching right now, but it would be good to keep the option open. Making your services act in a compliant way means you can get leverage from existing tools and infrastructure (which is a selling point of REST).
doGet();
Called by the server (via the service method) to allow a servlet to handle a GET request.
doPost()
Called by the server (via the service method) to allow a servlet to handle a POST request.
No issues with them.Both will handle your request.
I'm working on some user related tasks for a website. For cases when the person is registering or editing a user, they fill out a form and the request is handled in a servlet. At the moment, the servlet is taking all the request parameters and building a User object from them, like this:
User toRegister = new User(request.getParameter("name"),
request.getParameter("lastName"));
There's more parameters but you get the point.
So this sort of code is being reused in a bunch of different servlets (registering, admin adding user, user updating self, admin updating others etc) and it's kinda ugly, so I wanted to clean it up. The two alternatives I could think of were a constructor that takes the request object or a static method in the User class to create and return a new User based on the request.
It's not much of a question since I know they would both work but I couldn't find any sort of best practices for this situation. Should I keep to handling the requests individually in the servlets in case the forms change or should I implement one of the above methods?
DON'T add a c'tor that takes a Request as an argument. You only couple your User class to the Servlet API this way.
Instead use a Web Framework as #skaffman suggests. There are many of these, and it will make your life easier.
EDIT: If you refuse to learn a new framework you can at least use BeanUtils of some similar framework to do the data binding only. I do recommend the Web Framework option though.
Instead of coding all the business logic in the servlet, why dont you use basic MVC framework. Using a framework will make your coding and testing a lot easier.