I saw these two links:
1.SOAP vs REST
SOAP vs REST 2
I understood the difference between the two. But I also heard about WADL (https://wadl.java.net/), which are used along with REST to provide a contract ( similar to SOAP WSDL does)
Now I have two questions:
REST is also adheres to the data type that is going to receive or transmit by WADL, which now acts very similar to SOAP ( with WSDL ).
If REST with WADL and SOAP are similar, which one to use?
Thanks in advance.
SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol)
REST (Representation State Transfer)
SOAP and REST can’t be compared directly, since the first is a protocol and the second is an architectural style.
The main difference between SOAP and REST is the degree of coupling between client and server implementations. SOAP works like a custom desktop application, tightly coupled to server. There is rigid contract between client and server and everything seem like breaking is any of the side is changed. But, REST client is more like a browser. It’s a generic client that knows how to use a protocol and standardized methods. If done right, there would be less coupling.
A client is supposed to enter into REST without prior knowledge of the API, except for the entry point and the media type. In SOAP, the clients need to have the prior knowledge of everything it will be using.
REST is protocol independent. It’s not coupled to HTTP. We can use it for any protocol for which there is standardized URI scheme. But, SOAP itself is a protocol.
SOAP only supports XML, but REST supports different format like text, JSON, XML etc. And we know if we use JSON then definitely we will be in better place in terms of payload.
SOAP can use any generic transport (HTTP / HTTPS) or RPC (Remote Procedural Call). But, REST uses only HTTP/HTTPS
SOAP can’t use REST. But, REST can use SOAP similar to HTTP or any other protocols
SOAP used services interfaces to expose the business logic. REST used URI to expose the business logic
In Java, JAX-WS is for SOAP web services. But, Java JAX-RS is for REST web services
SOAP defines the standards to be strictly followed. REST doesn’t define any standards like SOAP
SOAP requires more bandwidth and resource than REST. REST required less bandwidth and resources.
SOAP defines its own security. REST inherits security measures from underlying transport
SOAP is less preferred these days as compared to REST
RESTful and SOAP WebServices are fundamentally different.
In short - SOAP is a typical RPC based call where you hide your request action and details within the XML document of the SOAP body. Wheras pure RESTful webservie totally rely on HTTP methods to perform an action on server.
Although WADL is not yet widely adopted and not really a standard but the theory behind it is to simply help tools to generate some code, and it aims to promote reuse of applications beyond the basic use in a web browser i.e. machine-to-machine communication (still using HTTP protocol).
Related
We have currently implemented SOAP endpoints with CXF (Spring Boot). In accordance with the contract-first approach, we provide a WSDL, generate Java objects, and services from it (cxf-codegen-plugin) and finally implement the service interface.
This is all very nice and simple, but we only need the SOAP XML or the corresponding DOM tree. Not only is the conversion to Java objects unnecessary, we also have to convert them back to XML and lose some information from the original XML.
As far as I understand is SAAJ (SOAP with Attachments API for Java) exactly right here, or am I missing something? At most all resources about SAAJ are quite old and "low level". I cannot find good resources for that kind of approach.
In addition, we want to implement new services as microservices soon and are currently reviewing Quarkus and Apache Camel. However, I cannot find a (simple) way to create corresponding endpoints from the WSDLs, via which we then receive the SOAP message as plain XML / DOM tree.
In jax-ws, message-level access can be accomplished on the server side using web service Provider-based endpoints, and on the client side using Dispatch clients.
A web service Provider-based endpoint offers a dynamic alternative to the Java service endpoint interface (SEI)-based endpoint. Unlike the SEI-based endpoint that abstracts the details of converting between Java objects and their XML representation, the Provider interface enables you to access the content directly at the XML message level—without the JAXB binding. web service Provider-based endpoints can be implemented synchronously or asynchronously using the javax.xml.ws.Provider or com.sun.xml.ws.api.server.AsyncProvider interfaces, respectively.
See https://cxf.apache.org/docs/provider-services.html for details
I'm starting to choose a way to create my webservice, so i found 2 ways to do it:
1) Using the package javax.jws, with annotation #WebService:
#WebService(...)
public class MyServiceImpl {
2) The other way is using javax.ws, with annotation #Path:
#Path("/MyService")
public class MyServiceImpl
In my understand using the second solution is more simple, because when i need to create the Client i just need make a HTTP call (GET/POST). Using the first solution i need create a WSDL client, more complex solution.
So, I would like to know which is the advantage in use FIRST SOLUTION.
The SOAP/WSDL style is useful when a formal contract must be established to describe the interface that the web service offers.The Web Services Description Language (WSDL) describes the details such as messages, operations, bindings, and location of the web service.
Also the SOAP/WSDL style is useful when the application architecture needs to handle asynchronous processing and invocation (e.g. using JAX-WS the assynchronous clients can be created).
The disadvantages of SOAP/WSDL style are
its complexity: tools are required to create a client
heavier on Bandwidth : SOAP requires a heavy XML wrapper arround each request or response
complicated security rules
The advantages of REST style are
simplicity: REST client can be accessed from any browser (however, this is only true for GET method. Data creation request requires also the XML wrapper).
lighter on Bandwidth : data on the wire are usually bare xml elements (not wrapped within the <Envelope><Body> tags).
REST application security rules can be setup using the http standards: the administrator (or firewall) can discern the intent of each message by analyzing the HTTP command used in the request.
For example, a GET request can always be considered safe because it can't, by definition, modify any data.
The disadvantage of REST style is that it still doesn't cover all business requirements
There is no common standard accepted yet for the formal REST service description
REST requests (especially GET method) are not suitable for large amount of data
REST doesn't cover all web services standards, like Transactions, Security, Addressing, Trust, Coordination,
I have been seeing SOAP is "Heavy Weight" and REST is "Light Weight". On what parameters, we are telling REST is lightweight than SOAP?
We were using IFW model web services in our company earlier. But our management told us to develop all the new APIs going forward in REST. We are backend service providers in my company.
How REST is best useful for us?
What does "lightweight" means in context?
This question seems like repetition but don't understand the terms used.
REST gives you a session less window into a system. It does not track you, it does not care about you. All you have done is send a request which contains..hopefully some id to verify that you can make it. It may return a HTTP status code, it may return some body but ultimately, once the request is complete you are forgotten.
SOAP is heavy in a sense that it describes a "contract" between the remote system and your client. In order for your client to communicate effectively it MUST implement its schema...this is the SOAP skeleton. It describes the calls you can make and the objects you can expect back.
The reason why SOAP is heavy is because of serialization. Upon each SOAP request you typically serialize a java object, send it over HTTP and get a serialized response which is deserialized into an object via reflection...this is heavy. It also means that if the endpoint changes how they work, you must change your contract. You don't have to do this with REST.
With SOAP you run into multi threaded issues.
To answer quickly..
they might mean that a REST service is "lightweight" because you do not need to release changes to clients. You simply make changes to your logic, retaining URLS and the response should remain the same.
With SOAP...if you added a new field to an object, you would have to get the client to implement the new schema. SOAP is pretty old had.
REST is lightweight in that it and relies upon the HTTP standard to do its work. It is great to get a useful web service up and running quickly. If you don't need a strict API definition, this is the way to go. Most web services fall into this category. You can version your API so that updates to the API do not break it for people using old versions(as long as they specify a version). REST essentially requires HTTP and is format-agnostic, so you can use XML, JSON, HTML etc).
But the SOAP will wrap the structure into a SOAP envelope (follows an XML standard). The complexity of the SOAP envelope is based on the used message version and additional Web Service protocols. SOAP is generally transport-agnostic, meaning you don't necessarily need to use HTTP.
It can be pointed out that SOAP was designed for a distributed computing environment whereas REST was designed for a point-to-point environment.
I wonder if it is OK to say that while SOAP gives more security, REST-based API s will be easier on the resources and more scalable? As an example, Twitter, Facebook, Google Drive, Blogger, etc all have REST-based APIs that clients can consume.
Generally REST reduces the size and scope of request payloads by mapping request semantics to the underlying HTTP protocol. For example, SOAP will usually add an envelope (of varying complexity) which utilizes a WSDL (a contract) for both request and response types and service mappings. REST will just use POST, GET, etc to a URL with some HTTP encoded parameters and thus lacks an enforced contract.
There are several aspects of lightweight. SOAP is XML only, while REST allows you to send any payload, such as JSON which is less verbose and simpler than XML. Generally speaking, it takes less memory and less bandwidth to deal with JSON than XML.
On another level, using SOAP you typically describe everything as services. So, you need to define a message schema/structure for each verb and noun i.e. "CreateOrder". In REST, you use the predefined HTTP methods such as POST and put the noun/"resource" in the URI which uses already existing constructs on the HTTP level - not reinventing them in XML.
Then there is the effort it takes to adapt to change. A small change in SOAP requires you to redefine the schema, redefine the wsdl and handle versions. In rest, in the best of worlds, there is a degree of dynamic coded into the API (links to referenced resources, among other things), so that some changes can be implemented and takes effect directly.
All the heavy weight strictness of SOAP of course has a valid reason for existence. It's less likely two implementations have different interpretations of the API, than in a loosely defined REST API. SOAP also allows you to implement skeleton code in various languages based on a WSDL. In some complex scenarios, this is actually almost the only productive way to work with SOAP. Marshalling and unmarshalling between objects and serialized XML is rather heavy and adds to the heavyness of SOAP.
I want to know the difference, advantages and disadvantages of these two web services. Imagine I want to send a big image file:
a) a RPC based webservice via JAX-WS using SOAP
b) a REST based webservice using HTTP
SOAP has a mechanism called Message Transmission Optimization Mechanism (MTOM) that is used specifically for sending large binary data (e.g. images).
REST uses HTTP directly, which means that anything done with SOAP (and MTOM) can be done using REST. Look at this answer: Is it possible to use MTOM in reponse of CXF RESTful Web Service
I have a backend system that currently returns a domain object. I want to build a REST & SOAP front end using mule. To create responses that are REST or SOAP based, and ensure that the backend is protocol agnostic, I am thinking about creating two protocol adapters (REST and SOAP). It is unclear to me if it is better to create a mule translator for the service, which understands the protocol and delegates to generate an appropriate response, or just create two class interfaces (using JAX-RS/JAX-WS annotations) to the service.
I'm not finding much literature, best practices, or design patterns on the subject. Can someone point me to some useful material or provide their opinions?
Writing transformers for message formatting would be a waste of time.
You should write service classes with JAX-RS/JAX-WS annotations, transports exist for both.
For a REST service you can use the Jersey transport:
http://www.mulesoft.org/documentation/display/JERSEY/User's+Guide
For SOAP service you can use the CXF transport (also supports JAX-RS):
http://www.mulesoft.org/documentation/display/CXF/Building+a+web+service
Note: You don't need mule for this at all, both Jersey and CXF run in a servlet container like tomcat.