As a newbie i am trying to understand REST and its principles. I have read some articles about it but struggling to undestand Code Demand Constraint which is the only optional constraint. What is it ? How and when to implement it?
Any help would be appreciated.
Roy Fielding's thesis, effectively the original source on REST, defines the Code-On-Demand constraint as follows:
REST allows client functionality to be extended by downloading and
executing code in the form of applets or scripts. This simplifies
clients by reducing the number of features required to be
pre-implemented. Allowing features to be downloaded after deployment
improves system extensibility. However, it also reduces visibility,
and thus is only an optional constraint within REST.
At the time this was written, the web was mostly just static documents and the only "web client" was the browser itself. Now it's commonplace for JavaScript-powered web apps to be consuming REST APIs. This is an example of code on demand - the browser grabs an initial HTML document and supports <script> tags inside that document so that an application can be loaded on-demand.
Related
I've read articles and posts about what a project and an app is for Django, and basically end up using the typical example of Pool and Users, however a real program generally use a complex relational database, therefore its design gravitates around this RDB; and the eternal conflict raises once again about: which ones to consider an application and which one to consider components of that application?
Let's take as an example this RDB (courtesy of Visual Paradigm):
I could consider the whole set as an application or to consider every entity as an application, the outlook looks gray. The only thing I'm sure is about this:
$ django-admin startproject movie_rental
So I wish to learn from the expertise of all of you: What approach (not necessarily those mentioned before) would you use to create applications based on this RDB for a Django project?
Thanks in advance.
PS1: MORE DETAILS RELATED ABOUT MY REQUEST
When programming something I follow this steps:
Understand the context what you are going to program about,
Identify the main actors and objects in this context,
If needed, make an UML diagram,
Design a solid-relational-database diagram, (solid=constraints, triggers, procedures, etc.)
Create the relational database,
Start coding... suffer and enjoy
When I learn something new I hope they follow these same steps to understand where they want to go with their actions.
When reading articles and posts (and viewing videos), almost all of them omit the steps 1 to 5 (because they choose simple demo apps), and when programming they take the easy route, and don't show other situations or the many supposed features that Django offers (reusability, pluggability, etc).
When doing this request, I wish to know what criteria is used for experienced programmers in Django to determine what applications to create based on this sample RDB diagram.
With the (2) answers obtained so far, "application" for...
brandonris1 is about features/services
Jeff Hui is about implementing entities of a DB
James Bennett is about every action on a object, he likes doing a lot of apps
Conclusion so far: Django application is a personal creed.
My initial request was about creating applications, but as models are mentioned, I have this another question: is with a legacy relational database (as showed in the picture) possible to create a Django project with multiple apps? this is because in every Django demo project showed, every app created has a model with their own tables, giving the impression that tables do not interact with those of other applications.
I hope my request is more clear. Thanks again for your help.
It seems you are trying to decide between building a single monolithic application vs microservices. Both approaches have their pros and cons.
For example, a single monolithic application is a good solution if you have a small amount of support resources and do not need to be able to develop new features in fast sprints across the different areas of the application (i.e. Film Management Features vs Staff Management Features)
One major downside to large monolithic applications is that eventually their feature sets grow too large and with each new feature, you have a significant amount of regression testing which will need to be done to ensure there aren't any negative repercussions in other areas of the application.
Your other option is to go with a microservice strategy. In this case, you would divide these entities amongst a series of smaller services and provide them each methods to integrate/communicate with each other (APIs).
Example:
- Film Service
- Customer Service
- Staff Service
The benefits of this approach is it allows you to separate capabilities and features by specific service areas thus reducing risk and regression testing across the application when new features are deployed or there is a catastrophic issue (i.e. DB goes down).
The downside to this approach is that under true microservice architecture, all resources are separated therefore you need to have unique resources (ie Databases, servers) for each service thus increasing your operating cost.
Either of these options is a good option but is totally dependent on your support model and expected volumes. Hope this helps.
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
After reading through your additional details, since this DB already exists and my assumption is that you cannot migrate it, you still have the same choice as to whether or not you follow a monolithic application or a microservices architecture.
For both approaches, you would need to connect your django webapp the the specific DB you are already using. I can't speak for every connector out there but I know that the MySQL connector allows django to read from the pre-existing db to systematically generate the models.py file for the application. As a part of that connector, there is a model variable which allows you to define whether or not Django is responsible for actually managing the DB tables themselves.
The only thing this changes from an architecture perspective is how many times do you want to code this connection?
If you only want to do it once and completely comply with the DRY method, you can build a monolithic application knowing that as new features become required, application wide regression testing will be an absolute requirement.
If you want ultimate flexibility for future changes with this collection of features and don't mind recoding the migration across multiple apps while reducing the need for application wide regression testing as new features become required, a microservice architecture strategy is more appropriate.
I am in the process of developing a rich internet web application that communicates to a (Java) back-end via web services. I have prototyped a user interface in both Flex/Flash and GWT/Javascript and have noticed that these RIA platforms tend to favor an RPC-style method of back-end communication (AMF for Flex and GWT-RPC for GWT).
In my case, the server also needs to provide web services other clients that I do not author. Because of this, I am leaning towards standards-based web services (e.g. SOAP and REST). I am convinced that the RIA must use the same web service we provide for others. I "get" SOAP because it models the RPC style I am familiar with from experience. I am new to REST, but have prototyped a REST back-end using CXF/Jackson. At this time, however, my REST API still feels like an RPC-style API and I realize it's because I am having trouble getting my head around the idea of HATEOAS.
I have read Roy T. Fieldings helpful blog post about 10 times and I think I am beginning to see the light. For example, it is clear to me that if I were to include links to various state transitions along with my resource I could really reduce the amount of coupling between my client and server. My client could just render buttons that provide the user with access to the legal operations that can be performed on the displayed entity at that time.
But does loose coupling between a RIA and its server application matter?
By their very nature, RIAs are pretty tightly coupled with the server data model. Out of the box they presuppose many things. I am guessing that is why they also prefer an RPC-style application protocol...because loose coupling is not a design goal. But I am beginning to realize that if we took HATEOAS seriously, we could write a much more generic RIA client that would make VERY few assumptions about the data model and operations that can be performed. That could reduce the amount of effort to maintain the client through changes in the back-end, but does this make sense? does the benefit outweigh the cost?
p.s. - Two more details -- This application has an extremely complex, deeply nested data model. Also, I could not care less if somebody tells me we are not a 100% pure REST web-app.
It's an excellent philosophical question. My general response is some coupling should be expected.
Let me explain more. While it's possible to conceive of a fully generic application interface that just exposes the model in a human-usable way, it's actually incredibly difficult to write such a piece of software except for truly miniscule domains (e.g., filling a record that will be used to populate a DB where all the fields are picked from finite simple enumerations). If your application doesn't fit that model, you're going to have to have something in there that is specific to the app. If you do that in a “generic” way, you'll be downloading a complex description of what your generic client app is supposed to do, and that description will itself start to feel more and more like a programming language. Now you're back to square one, except with a (probably badly-designed) new domain-specific language in the mix as well. You might as well cut to the chase and accept that going wholly generic isn't worthwhile.
But that's not to say that you shouldn't take care to think carefully about what resources you expose, what verbs apply to those operations, and how users' software will discover those resources. Following REST and HATEOAS there will help a lot (and it helps if you've got a clear idea about what the application's underlying abstract model is; you should aim to expose that in a natural way).
Given that the GWT app is served by HTTP, having it tightly coupled with the server is not violating HATEOAS. It's" code on demand".
Google, Twitter and Facebook all use specific APIs for their app, different from the one exposed to third parties (Twitter has recently moved to using their public API for their web app, but it wasn't originally the case). Google said they had no plan to move G+ over to its public API, because it allows them to experiment and make breaking changes without breaking third parties.
Well, the title more or less says it all. I sort of understand what REST is - the use of existing HTTP procedures (POST, GET, etc.) to facilitate the creation/use of web services. I'm more confused on what defines what a web service is and how REST is actually used to make/expose a service.
For example, Twitter, from what I've read, is RESTful. What does that actually mean? How are the HTTP procedures invoked? When I write a tweet, how is REST involved, and how is it any different than simply using a server side language and storing that text data in a database or file?
This concept is also a bit vague to me but after looking at your question I decided to clarify it a bit more for myself.
please refer to this link in msdn and this.
Basically it seems that it is about using http methods (Get/Post/Delete) to identify the exposure of resources the application allows.
For example:
Say you have the URL :
http://Mysite.com/Videos/21
where 21 is an id of a video.
We can further define what methods are allowed to this url - GET for retrieval of the resource, POST for updating/ Creating, Delete for deleting.
Generally, it seems like an organized and clean way to expose your application resources and the operations that are supported on them with the use of http methods
You may want to start with this excellent introductionary writeup. It covers it all, from start to end.
A RESTful architecture provides a unique URL that defines each resource individually and infers through HTTP action verbs the appropriate action to do for the same URL.
The best way I can think to explain it is to think of each data model in your application as a unique resource, and REST helps route the requests without using a query string at the end of the url, e.g., instead of /posts/&q=1, you'd just use posts/1.
It's easier to understand through example. This would be the REST architecture enforce by Rails, but gives you a good idea of the context.
GET /tweets/1 ⇒ means that you want to get the tweet with the id of 1
GET /tweets/1/edit ⇒ means you want to go to the action edit that is associated with the tweet with an id of 1
PUT /tweets/1 ⇒ PUT says to update this tweet not fetch it
POST /tweets ⇒ POST says i got a new one, add it to the db, i cant give an id cuz i dont have one yet until i save it to the db
DELETE /tweets/1 ⇒ delete it from the DB
Resources are often nested though so in twitter it might be like
GET /users/1/jedschneider/1 ⇒ users have many tweets; get the user with id of jedschneider and its tweet id 1
The architecture for implementing REST will be unique to the application, with some apps supporting by default (like Rails).
You're struggling because there are two relatively different understandings of the term "REST". I've attempted to answer this earlier, but suffice to say: Twitter's API isn't RESTful in the strict sense, and neither is Facebook's.
sTodorov's answer shows the common misunderstanding that it's about using all four HTTP verbs, and assigning different URIs to resources (usually with documentation of what all the URIs are). So when Twitter is invoking REST they're merely doing just this, along with most other RESTful APIs.
But this so-called REST is no different than RPC, except that RPC (with IDLs or WSDLs) might introduce code generation facilities, at the cost of higher coupling.
REST is actually not RPC. It's an architecture for hypermedia based distributed systems, which might not fit the bill for everyone making an API. In the linked MSDN article, the hypermedia kicks in when they talk about <Bookmarks>http://contoso.com/bookmarkservice/skonnard</Bookmarks>, the section ends with this sentence:
These representations make is possible to navigate between different types of resources
which is the core principle that most RESTful APIs violate. The article doesn't state how to document a RESTful API and if it did so, it would be a lot clearer that clients would have to navigate links in order to do things (RESTful), and not be provided with a lot of URI templates (RPCish).
RESTful and document/message-style seem to be two trends to implement web services nowadays in general. By this, I mean REST vs SOAP, and document-style vs RPC-style.
My question is how compatible REST is with document-style web services. From my limited knowledge of REST, it is utilizing http GET/POST/PUT/DELETE verbs to perform CRUD-like operations on remote resources denoted by URLs, which lends it into a more "chatty" and remote-method like style, aka RPC style. On the other hand, document-style web services emphasize on coarse-grained calls, i.e. sending up a batch like request document with complex information, and expecting a response document back also with complex information. I cannot see how it can be accomplished nicely with REST, without declaring only one resource for "Response" and using POST verb all the time (which will defeat the purpose of REST).
As I am new in both document-style and RESTful web services, please excuse me for, and kindly point out, any ignorance in above assumptions. Thanks!
Your understanding of REST is misguided. This is not surprising nor your fault. There is far, far more mis-information about REST floating around on the internet than there is valid information.
REST is far more suited to the coarse-grain document style type of distributed interface than it is for a data oriented CRUD interface. Although there are similarities between CRUD operations and the HTTP GET/PUT/POST/DELETE there are subtle differences that are very significant to the architecture of your application.
I don't think you mean REST over SOAP. It is possible to do REST over SOAP, but to my knowledge nobody does it, and I have never seen an article talking about it.
SOAP is usually used for "Web Services" and REST is usually done over HTTP.
REST is really meant to be used with documents as long as you consider your document a resource.
GET allows you to retrieve the document. Obviously.
POST allows you to create a document. No need for your API to require the full content of the document to create it. It is up to you to decide what is required to actually create the document.
PUT allows to modify the document. Again, no need to force the client to send the whole document each time he wants to save. Your API may support delta updates sent through PUT requests.
DELETE obviously deletes the document. Again, you can design your API so that deletes does not actually destroy every bits of the document. You can create a system similar to a recycle bin.
What is nice with REST and working with documents is that the server response contains every information needed to understand the response. So if a new resource is created, you should send its location, same if a resource is moved, etc. All you have to document is the data types that will be used (XML formats, JSON, etc.)
Standard HTTP methods are just there because their behaviour is already defined and allow clients to easily discover your API as long as they know the URI.
I was wondering if anyone can compare/contrast the differences between frontend, backend, and middleware ("middle-end"?) succinctly.
Are there cases where they overlap?
Are there cases where they MUST overlap, and frontend/backend cannot be separated?
In terms of bottlenecks, which end is associated with which type of bottlenecks?
Here is one breakdown:
Front-end tier -> User Interface layer usually consisting of a mix of HTML, Javascript, CSS, Flash, and various server-side code like ASP.Net, classic ASP, PHP, etc. Think of this as being closest to the user in terms of code.
Middleware, middle-tier -> One tier back, generally referred to as the "plumbing" part of a system. Java and C# are common languages for writing this part that could be viewed as the glue between the UI and the data and can be webservices or WCF components or other SOA components possibly.
Back-end tier -> Databases and other data stores are generally at this level. Oracle, MS-SQL, MySQL, SAP, and various off-the-shelf pieces of software come to mind for this piece of software that is the final processing of the data.
Overlap can exist between any of these as you could have everything poured into one layer like an ASP.Net website that uses the built-in AJAX functionality that generates Javascript while the code behind may contain database commands making the code behind contain both middle and back-end tiers. Alternatively, one could use VBScript to act as all the layers using ADO objects and merging all three tiers into one.
Similarly, taking middleware and either front or back-end can be combined in some cases.
Bottlenecks generally have a few different levels to them:
1) Database or back-end processing -> This can vary from payroll or sales or other tasks where the throughput to the database is bogging things down.
2) Middleware bottlenecks -> This would be where some web service may be hitting capacity but the front and back ends have bandwidth to handle more traffic. Alternatively, there may be some server that is part of a system that isn't quite the UI part or the raw data that can be a bottleneck using something like Biztalk or MSMQ.
3) Front-end bottlenecks -> This could client or server-side issues. For example, if you took a low-end PC and had it load a web page that consisted of a lot of data being downloaded, the client could be where the bottleneck is. Similarly, the server could be queuing up requests if it is getting hammered with requests like what Amazon.com or other high-traffic websites may get at times.
Some of this is subject to interpretation, so it isn't perfect by any means and YMMV.
EDIT: Something to consider is that some systems can have multiple front-ends or back-ends. For example, a content management system will likely have a way for site visitors to view the content that is a front-end but what about how content editors are able to change the data on the site? The ability to pull up this data could be seen as front-end since it is a UI component or it could be seen as a back-end since it is used by internal users rather than the general public viewing the site. Thus, there is something to be said for context here.
Generally speaking, people refer to an application's presentation layer as its front end, its persistence layer (database, usually) as the back end, and anything between as middle tier. This set of ideas is often referred to as 3-tier architecture. They let you separate your application into more easily comprehensible (and testable!) chunks; you can also reuse lower-tier code more easily in higher tiers.
Which code is part of which tier is somewhat subjective; graphic designers tend to think of everything that isn't presentation as the back end, database people think of everything in front of the database as the front end, and so on.
Not all applications need to be separated out this way, though. It's certainly more work to have 3 separate sub-projects than it is to just open index.php and get cracking; depending on (1) how long you expect to have to maintain the app (2) how complex you expect the app to get, you may want to forgo the complexity.
There are in fact 3 questions in your question :
Define frontend, middle and back end
How and when do they overlap ?
Their associated usual bottlenecks.
What JB King has described is correct, but it is a particular, simple version, where in fact he mapped front, middle and bacn to an MVC layer.
He mapped M to the back, V to the front, and C to the middle.
For many people, it is just fine, since they come from the ugly world where even MVC was not applied, and you could have direct DB calls in a view.
However in real, complex web applications, you indeed have two or three different layers, called front, middle and back. Each of them may have an associated database and a controller.
The front-end will be visible by the end-user. It should not be confused with the front-office, which is the UI for parameters and administration of the front. The front-end will usually be some kind of CMS or e-commerce Platform (Magento, etc.)
The middle-end is not compulsory and is where the business logics is. It will be based on a PIM, a MDM tool, or some kind of custom database where you enrich your produts or your articles (for CMS). It'll also be the place where you code business functions that need to be shared between differents frontends (for instance between the PC frontend and the API-based mobile application). Sometimes, an ESB or tool like ActiveMQ will be your middle-end
The back-end will be a 3rd layer, surrouding your source database or your ERP. It may be jsut the API wrting to and reading from your ERP. It may be your supplier DB, if you are doing e-commerce. In fact, it really depends on web projects, but it is always a central repository. It'll be accessed either through a DB call, through an API, or an Hibernate layer, or a full-featured back-end application
This description means that answering the other 2 questions is not possible in this thread, as bottlenecks really depend on what your 3 ends contain : what JB King wrote remains true for simple MVC architectures
at the time the question was asked (5 years ago), maybe the MVC pattern was not yet so widely adopted. Now, there is absolutely no reason why the MVC pattern would not be followed and a view would be tied to DB calls.
If you read the question "Are there cases where they MUST overlap, and frontend/backend cannot be separated?" in a broader sense, with 3 different components, then there times when the 3 layers architecture is useless of course. Think of a simple personal blog, you'll not need to pull external data or poll RabbitMQ queues.
Here is a real world example which shows front/mid/back end.
General description:
Frontend is responsible for presenting data to user. Please note interesting quirk that you may have two different front ends associated with single backend
Backend provides business logic/data persistence.
Middleware (activemq in the picture) is responsible for system to system. integration between backends. Usually it is installed as separate application
Overlapping:
It is possible to have overlapping between frontend and backend. This usually leaads to long-term issues with application maintenance and scalability. Fairly common in legacy applications.
Most modern technology stacks encourage developers to have strict separation. For example in the picture you can see that backend of the first system has rest web service which is a clear separation line.
Bottlenecks
Most bottlenecks in large are caused by database/network. Databases are located in backend. As for network issues every connection goes through netowrk, so every connection has potential for being slow. With good application design these issues are avoidable to large extend.
In terms of networking and security, the Backend is by far the most (should be) secure node.
The middle-end portion, usually being a web server, will be somewhat in the wild and cut off in many respects from a company's network. The middle-end node is usually placed in the DMZ and segmented from the network with firewall settings. Most of the server-side code parsing of web pages is handled on the middle-end web server.
Getting to the backend means going through the middle-end, which has a carefully crafted set of rules allowing/disallowing access to the vital nummies which are stored on the database (backend) server.
Frontend refers to the client-side, whereas backend refers to the server-side of the application. Both are crucial to web development, but their roles, responsibilities and the environments they work in are totally different. Frontend is basically what users see whereas backend is how everything works
Frontend -> these are the client side of a website from where a user can interact with the server through User Interface. generally built using Html and CSS.
Middleware -> Middleware are the software or service which is responsible for the system to communicate and manage the data. it handles the communication between components and input/output
Backend -> Backend are the server side of any application which consist of all functioning and operations performed on data. this part is considered to be most essential part of any application. Only the server admin have access to this. it mainly consist of database and servers.