What is the difference between the term Machine to Machine (M2M) communication and a Web service?
The W3C defines a Web service as
a software system designed to support interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network.
Wiki defines M2M communication as a
technologie that allow both wireless and wired systems to communicate with other devices of the same type
That sounds to me like different terms of the same thing.
SOAP, REST etc. are possibilities to implement both, Web services and M2M communication.
But what is the difference between M2M and Web service? Is it just like M2M is used in the context of an industry environment and for everything else (consumer-/financial applications) it's a Web service?
In my opinion, M2M implies lower level of communication and, if I may, 'lower level' of data.
I think formal distinction comes later in the definition:
... It has an interface described in a machine-processable format (specifically WSDL). Other systems interact with the Web service in a manner prescribed by its description using SOAP messages, typically conveyed using HTTP with an XML serialization in conjunction with other Web-related standards.
It is a service on the Web.
So a typical web service operates over HTTP, assumes a machine-processable description and implies use of certain technologies.
M2M, on the other hand, operates over wide range of protocols, that are lower-level than HTTP, and is a subject to restrictions other than those in web services, e.g. low energy consumption, constant data feed (instead of on-demand) etc.
Also, to me web services include human component: somewhere down the road there is a person consuming the data obtained from a web service, while in the case of M2M a human consumer is less expected. A goal of M2M communication might be to sync up an array of machines or have a machine make a decision based on the data it obtained from another machine.
Most of M2M devices rely on pure java or SIM cards to send/receive data to each others or backend systems. MNO SIM cards provide more convenient communication services with mobile data option. SIM cards provided by MNO do not come with big memory sizes and due to nature of SIM, SIM applets running on them must be minimalist.
If OTA related specifications defining remote management of SIM and SIM applications are investigated, you will see that there is always message command header and payload area as TLV byte streams(aka APDU). Each message is responded by received peer with positive or negative acknowledge. M2M applications since they mostly integrated to mobile network through SIM they also apply the same policy and defines their own raw communication protocol over SMS or TCP/IP bearer.
Related
I am working with web services right now. We have two types of services, one over HTTP and other over TCP. when Trying to understand the difference between these two, as per my understanding, services over TCP work at the transport layer i.e they transmit data over two ends. So in that case services over TCP will directly transfer data between two ends. But i am not so much clear on services over HTTP. I know we have a Client server model, REST, SOAP and HTTP is the protocol that transmits data but i am not able to properly relate the concept of services over HTTP!
Can anyone please help with an analogy which explains the difference between the two ?
As John Saunders is trying to allude to, I would agree that it is more important to understand the abstractions these protocols provide, rather than specific "Layer" they may be called in certain model (OSI). While the general model helps and applies, it doesn't provide specific details for actual protocols.
Having said that, the difference between so called Transport Layer Services using TCP vs Application Layer Services using HTTP, IMHO boils down to the comparisons between TCP and HTTP itself.
I'll start be saying that I hope it is known to anyone even vaguely familiar with these protocols, that HTTP is higher level abstraction than TCP and in fact it relies on TCP/IP itself. Hence HTTP clearly inherits certain feature like reliability from TCP/IP.
Now the contrast -
TCP Service
Design your own application level protocol - You design your own application level protocol.. For example, how will Client request operation to add an employee? How will Client request to find a given employee? etc... How do you indicate the format in which data can be exchanged between client and server? How will you even distinguish metadata (like request information) from data?
Efficiency - Can be efficient and compact in transmission of data. Since you define your own application layer protocol, Can be anything from binary to string to XML to anything else you can dream of.
HTTP for example, is built on top of TCP, in layman terms, mostly using Key Value pair style request headers.. vs SOAP, where much of information is passed as message envelope and message body (Which is why SOAP can be over HTTP as well as other protocols like Message Queues)
Performance - Given the possibility of having very compact application layer protocol, it can be relatively fast as well. For really high throughput, high performance, latency sensitive intranet applications, this can be a deciding factor.
Development Effort - Along with the flexibility, you certainly end up writing more code, as you attempt to define and implement your own application layer protocol.
HTTP Service
Larger parts of application protocol are defined for you - You design your application over well defined HTTP protocol. Typically HTTP Get would mean querying for a resource. Query filters in request url can be used for searches. HTTP POST, PUT and DELETE similarly have specific, well defined semantics.
Error / Fault handling - Even error are indicated using standards defined in HTTP protocol.. Like Status Code 200 (Success) vs 400 (BadRequest).
Efficiency - Can be quite verbose. Protocols defines almost every aspect of how the request must be defined.. and is typically text based..
Development and Tools support - HTTP can make it easier to use existing, vast variety of tools to send, receive and debug requests (Fiddler or Charles Proxy are famous HTTP debugging tools).
Internet / Firewall Friendly - HTTP is typically used at port 80 (although in theory can be other port as well). Which makes it more suitable not only for intranet applications, where you may have more control over firewalls and ports you open.. but also for accessing those services over Internet, because port 80 is typically open on almost every machine in the world...
Co-existence of multiple services - HTTP is so widely used, that it is expected multiple applications / services on a given machine to use it.. OS typically have special support built into the OS to handle this (http.sys on Windows) and you don't have to worry about one application / service stepping on another, by accidentally using the same port (one will fail in such case). Port negotiation between client and server is typically not an issue in this case, because HTTP is expected to be at port 80.
Securing the communication channel - When it comes to securing the communication, again there is well defined way to establish the same.. i.e. HTTPS. Unlike TCP/IP based service, you don't have to invent your own scheme to encrypt the communication between client and server.
Hosting the service - In theory, there are more ways to host an HTTP service, than a TCP service, again due to HTTP web applications already being a common scenario, which web servers like IIS already cater to. Your HTTP service can take advantage of countless out of the box features which web servers like IIS already have.. Recycling, Authentication, Resource Management, Request Filtering, Caching, Dynamic Compression and Logging etc etc etc.. you get for free with HTTP services hosted on any of the mature web server products.
Interoperability Across Platforms / Technology stacks - With HTTP, it would be far easier to use a mix of any technology stack, again because the implementation of the Protocol will be typically supported on various platforms.. from Linux / Unix to Windows.. or from .Net to Java to Ruby.. You'll get benefit from existing tools and technologies present on these platforms which support HTTP.. Hence Http can be the de facto choice, if, for example, you expect server to be in .Net on Windows, but clients to be in Java on Unix.
I could go on.. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and I am sure that many others could add plenty more to this.. But hopefully this gives you a good idea for what you were looking.. One can clearly see, that this can be a very deep topic.. Based on your response and time, I may edit this answer in future.. or encourage others to update it, as they see fit.
Side note - It is interesting to note, that even though HTTP adds plenty over TCP/IP to make it a great and ubiquitous choice for application protocol.. There is always scope for more / higher level abstraction.. So much so that, there are other, newer service protocols, which are built on top of HTTP. For example - Odata. Look at OData if you are curious..
And of course, in todays world of services, the discussion will not be complete without the mention of REST.
EDIT: Another interesting side note - If you are building on Windows platform, and using .Net framework, there are frameworks like Windows Communication Foundation a.k.a. WCF, which try to provide such abstractions, that you can swap out your choice of communication protocol (Client and Server choice must still match), from HTTP to TCP to MSMQ to IPC etc, with mere configuration changes, or host same service over multiple communication protocols by creating multiple endpoints. Refer to Understanding various types of WCF bindings for high level overview and comparison of various, out of the box, options WCF provides.
When working with TCP/IP and protocols layered on top of it, I would take the 7-layer model with a grain of salt. The true number of layers will differ, and will not match up with the classic OSI model.
For instance, HTTP is built on top of the TELNET protocol, which is layered on top of TCP. Does that make TELNET a Presentation-layer protocol? No, it's an Application-layer protocol that happens to have another Application-layer protocol built on top of it.
And then we run SOAP over HTTP. Or, if we want, we can run SOAP over TCP/IP. So what layer is SOAP? Is that layer 8 or is that layer 9?
As You asked, I'll try to explain by analogy, while not repeating previous answers too much.
Let's say we have helpdesk (service) reachable by phone call (TCP) and by SMS (HTTP). From Your (application) point of view You should get the same information independent of which communication method You chose. But there are differencies how this communication will be going, because phone call (TCP) is statefull channel, while SMS (HTTP) is stateless:
once phone call is established, information exchange will continue until hang'up;
SMS message must contain all relevant information to get a usefull response.
To introduce state into SMS channel, additional steps at helpdesk level are required, for example, You'll be assigned ticket number, which You must send with each related SMS (HTTP cookie/session) - this won't be handled authomatically by GSM network. This state is handled by helpdesk's and Your (service and application) logic.
Both service types have advantages and pitfalls. And both should work - preferance depends on actual use-case.
There is no too much difference what means are used to exchange data (You can even exchange mails using post office, if latency is acceptable). In practice it means You can use ping (ICMP) or DNS queries, or emails to exchange data - as long as Your application knows how to use/decode such channel.
I think John Saunders in his answer refered to 7 layer OSI model, an I think his point is correct.
This analogy is not 100% correct, I tried to explain the idea: the difference is how the state is preserved (by protocol itself, or by application/framework).
A quote from Java Web Services: Up And Running, Second Edition book :
"At present, the distinction between the two flavours of web service is
not sharp,
because a SOAP-based service delivered over HTTP can be seen as a special case
of a REST-style service;"
How ?
How?
I believe the writer's statement is incorrect.
What is SOAP?
According to wikipedia:
SOAP can form the foundation layer of a web services protocol stack,
providing a basic messaging framework upon which web services can be
built. This XML based protocol consists of three parts: an envelope,
which defines what is in the message and how to process it, a set of
encoding rules for expressing instances of application-defined
datatypes, and a convention for representing procedure calls and
responses. SOAP has three major characteristics: Extensibility
(security and WS-routing are among the extensions under development),
Neutrality (SOAP can be used over any transport protocol such as HTTP,
SMTP, TCP, or JMS) and Independence (SOAP allows for any programming
model).
As you can see, there really isn't anything in this description of SOAP that takes any ideological stance over what the structure of your API calls (url wise) must adhere to. Of course, soap uses XML, and XML can have a data structure that essentially works as the rule-set of your API call... thats cool.
In contrast, we have REST.
What is REST?
According to wikipedia:
The REST architectural style describes the following six constraints
applied to the architecture, while leaving the implementation of the
individual components free to design:
Client–server: Servers are not concerned with the user interface or user state, so that servers can be simpler and more scalable.
Stateless: The client–server communication is further constrained by no client context being stored on the server between requests.
Cacheable: Responses must, implicitly or explicitly, define themselves as cacheable, or not, to prevent clients reusing stale or inappropriate data in response to further requests.
Layered system: A client cannot ordinarily tell whether it is connected directly to the end server, or to an intermediary along the way. Intermediary servers may improve system scalability by enabling load-balancing and by providing shared caches.
Code on demand (optional): Servers can temporarily extend or customize the functionality of a client by the transfer of executable code.
Uniform interface: The uniform interface between clients and servers, discussed below, simplifies and decouples the architecture, which enables each part to evolve independently. (i.e. HTTP GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, DELETE)
Comparison
In my mind, it shouldn't be described as SOAP vs REST, it should be RPC vs REST. RPC is remote procedural call, which basically means that every single functionality of your API gets 1 distinct API endpoint, and so on. so, REST can do with 1 url what RPC does with 7. SOAP is RPC (right?)
Yes, both are web services.
But saying that an RPC API is RESTful-ish because its transmitted over HTTP is hardly grounds to say they are similar... from the detailed information above, you can see that REST takes a much more ideological approach to the structure, transfer, purpose, scalability, and state of your service, whereas SOAP doesn't really talk about those things, and presumably the developer can choose to do, or not do, those things.
In conclusion, more context is needed for me to really understand what point the author was trying to make. An RPC API can be similar to REST if you make it do RESTful things.. but that is really circumstantial, isn't it?
Our team is in the design phase of a client-server database software project. We're intending to develop a single database server system, probably using MySQL with a database interface/abstraction layer, possibly written in Java. We will also (eventually) have multiple client programs talking to the server. So the question is, what do we use for communication between the server and what could end up being several totally different clients? (Think Android, iPhone, desktop, or even a Web server, forwarding to a browser.)
The two main camps right now are arguing between using:
1. completely custom socket software, because it should allow system independence,
2. exposing a Web service of some kind, because it would provide higher-level functionality
Any ideas? I know "Web service" and "Web API" are very general terms that sort of evoke nauseating buzzword-crazy five-year-old tech media, but they are definitely a valid option. Right?
Plain socket APIs have the advantage of working anywhere. The disadvantage is that they're hard to do right.
Since it sounds like you're going to end up with a database-like API over the network, you should at least consider oData.
I've been doing a bit of research and cannot seem to quite capture the information I need. Our software offers a public api (webservice) which our clients can implement using HTTPS calls through cURL. Many of our clients use SAP, which I most honestly know next to nothing about (nor does anybody on our crew).
I'm trying to put together a big picture of what those clients would have to do to easily communicate with our webservices. What requirements would SAP clients have? I've read a bit about the WebServices framework in SAP but that doesn't quite seem to be what I need.
Is it simple to create or use existing SAP modules in any language that could connect to a remote webservice through cURL?
Can I find any valuable documentation out there that I could / should read ?
I'm not sure if you'll like this answer, but I'll write it anyway. :-)
If "webservice" means SOAP/WSDL for you, then it should be technically possible to generate some proxies to facilitate communication with your application. If you're talking about REST or some home-brewn stuff, it's a bit more work, but it's still possible. There's an example available in the SAP help portal. (And by the way, "some language" means ABAP.)
HOWEVER: You will need someone with SAP experience in the area you're interested in (materials management, sales, whatever). And you'll probably need someone to code some bits and pieces in the SAP system to make the interface work OR your clients will need some kind of communication server (PI) in between OR both. Unless you've got a customer who will let you play and gain experience in their system, you'll also need a SAP installation to do this.
Unfortunately, the big picture might be even bigger than you imagine...
EDIT: If you want to get an idea of what ABAP is, this answer might be a starting point.
For connecting an SAP system with other systems, consider using SAP NetWeaver Process Integration (SAP PI). It is a part of SAP Netweaver that has the explicit purpose of communicating between various SAP systems as well as other (third party) systems. It's the core component of any SAP flavored service-oriented architecture (SOA).
From Wikipedia :
SAP calls PI an integration broker because it mediates
between entities with varying requirements in terms of connectivity,
format, and protocols. According to SAP, PI reduces the TCO
by providing a common repository for interfaces. The central component
of SAP PI is the SAP Integration Server, which facilitates
interaction between diverse operating systems and applications across
internal and external networked computer systems.
PI is built upon the SAP Web Application Server.
I'm working on a real time application implemented using in a SOA-style (read loosely coupled components connected via some messaging protocol - JMS, MQ or HTTP).
The architect who designed this system opted to use JMS to connect the components. This system is real time so there no need to queue up messages should one component fail (the transaction will simply time out). Further, there is no need for guaranteed delivery or rollback.
In this instance, is there any benefit to using JMS over something like an HTTP web service (speed, resource footprint, etc)?
One thing that I'm thinking is since the JMS approach requires us to set a thread pool size (the number of components listening to a JMS topic/queue), wouldn't a HTTP service be a better fit since this additional configuration is not needed (a new thread is created for each HTTP request making the application scalable to an "unlimited" number of requests until the server runs out of resources).
Am I missing something?
I don't disagree with the points made by S.Lott at all, but here are a couple of points to consider regarding HTTP web services:
Your clients only need to know how to communicate via HTTP - a protocol well supported by just about every modern langauge in one form or another. JMS, though popular, is more specialist than HTTP, and so restricts the languages your interconnected systems can use. Perhaps not an issue for your system at the moment, but will you need to plug in other systems later that might struggle to support JMS connectivity?
Standards like WSDL and SOAP which you could levarage for your services are well supported by many langauges and there are plenty of tools around that will generate code to implement both ends of the pipeline (client and server) for you from a WSDL file, reducing the amount of dev you'll have to do. These standards also make it relatively simple to define and publish the specification of the data you'll be passing between your systems, something you'll presumably have to do by hand using a queueing technology like JMS.
On the downside, as pointed out by S.Lott, JMS gives you functionality that you throw away using the (stateless) HTTP protocol: guaranteed ordering & reliability; monitoring; scalability; etc. Are you sure you don't need these, and won't need these going forward?
Great question, btw.
I think it's really dependent on the situation. Where I work, we support Remoting, JMS, MQ, HTTP, and sFTP. We are implementing a middleware appliance that speaks Remoting, JMS, MQ, and HTTP, and a software middleware component that speaks JMS, MQ, and HTTP.
As sgreeve alluded to above, standards help us become flexible, but proprietary formats allow more functionality.
In a nutshell, I'd say use HTTP for stateless calls (which could end up meeting almost all of your needs), and whatever proprietary formats you need for stateful calls. If you work in a big enterprise, a hardware appliance is usually a great fit as middleware: Lightning fast compression, encryption, transformation, and translation, with very low total cost of ownership.
I don't know enough about your requirements, but you may be overlooking Manageability, Flexibility and Performance.
JMS allows you to monitor and manage the queue. These are features HTTP lacks, and you'd have to build rather than buy from a vendor.
Also, There are queues and topics in JMS, allowing multiple subscribers to a single publisher. Not possible in HTTP.
While you may not need those things in release 1.0, you might want them in the future.
Also, JMS may be able to use other transport mechanisms like named sockets, which reduces the overheads if there isn't all that socket negotiation going on with (almost) every request.
If you go down the HTTP route and you want to support more than one machine or some kind of reliability - you are going to need a load balancer capable of discovering the available web servers and loading requests across them - then failing over to another web server if a particular box/process dies. Clients making HTTP requests are also going to have to deal with servers failing and retrying operations in some loop.
This is one of the main features of a message queue - reliable load balancing with failover and loose coupling among the producers and consumers without them having to include retry logic - so your client or server code doesn't have to worry about this kinda thing. This is totally separate to whether or not you want message persistence or want to use ACID transactions to produce/consume messages (which can be very handy BTW).
If you focus just on the server side using Java - whether Servlets or MessageListener/MDBs they are kinda similar either way really. The difference is the load balancer.
So maybe the question should really be - is a JMS broker easier to setup & work with than setting up your DNS/NAT/IP/HTTP load balancer infrastructure?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by real-time... Neither JMS nor HTTP in my opinion support "real-time" applications well, meaning they cannot offer predictable/deterministic performance nor properly prioritize flows in the presence of contention.
Part of it is that these technologies are built on top of TCP which serializes all traffic into a single FIFO meaning that different traffic flows cannot be easily prioritized. Moreover TCP timers are not easily controlled resulting unpredictable blocking and timeouts... For this reason many streaming applications use UDP instead of TCP as an underlying protocol.
Another problem with JMS is that typical implementations use a broker that centralizes message dispatch. This is not the best architecture to get deterministic performance.
If you are looking for a middleware that can offer you the kind of reliability guarantees and publish-subscribe semantics you get with JMS, but was developed to fit the real-time application domain I recommend you take a look at the OMG Data-Distribution Service (DDS). See dds.omg.org and this article I wrote arguing why DDS is the best middleware to implement a real-time SOA. http://soa.sys-con.com/node/467488