In our project we're storing objects in a S3 bucket with versioning enabled. There's no logic on the server besides creating a signed URI for the client to use. We'd like to keep it this way as we want the client to do all the processing.
To the problem. We're successfully able to generate signed URIs for a GET and PUT object for the whole objects, but we're unable to generate a URI for listing all available versions.
This is an example of a GET-url on a object in one of our buckets which works (the 99/2 are folders in the bucket):
https://bucketname.s3.amazonaws.com/99/2?AWSAccessKeyId=ourkey&Signature=signature&Expires=1410784420
According to the docs (GET versions) we're supposed to append ?versions and the different versions. We've tried the following:
https://bucketname.s3.amazonaws.com/99/2?AWSAccessKeyId=ourkey&Signature=signature&Expires=1410784420&versions
This then results in the browser complaining that the signature is wrong, it's missing "?versions". If I read docs I interpret it as it shouldn't be included in the signature unless we append a value to it as well, which we aren't. The problem is then that it doesn't matter if I then add it to the signature creation as it still fails with the error "There is no such thing as the ?versions sub-resource for a key".
Is there someone who has successfully created a signed uri for object to list it's versions? We'd really love to get some pointers on what we're doing wrong!
I'd also like to point out that we're not using the built in URI-generator as we couldn't get it to fit our needs.
Listing object versions is an operation performed "against" the bucket, not against the object... so your path is always going to be /, no matter what keys you want to list.
You specify the key prefix in the query string as prefix=....
The string to sign would then begin with /bucketname/?versions&prefix=....
You sort all of the query string parameters lexically, except for the subresource (versions, in this case), which goes first. If more than one subresource, you also sort them lexically among themselves, but they still go first. Everything is separated by & in the string to sign.
Significant caveat: the list api may not be appropriate to hand over to the client, since you can end up returning the wrong things... "prefix" is just that -- a prefix. If it doesn't match exactly, it can match on substrings, which might not be what you want. You may also need to use delimiter and max-keys and be prepared to handle the pagination through truncated listings that will become necessary when a large number of results is returned.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/RESTBucketGETVersion.html
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html
Related
First, I understand GET requests should be safe and idempotent. However, my current situation is a little bit different from all the examples I have seen, so I'm not sure what to do.
The web app is some kind of metadata database for all online videos (by "all" I actually mean "all YouTube, Vimeo, XXX, ...", i.e., a known range of mainstream online video websites). Users can POST to http://www.example.com/api/video/:id to add metadata to a certain video, and GET from http://www.example.com/api/video/:id to get back all the current metadata for the given video.
The problem is how to get the video ID for a URL (say https://youtu.be/foobarqwe12). I think the users can query the server somehow, perhaps with a GET at http://www.example.com/api/find_video?url=xxx. The idea is that as long as the URL is valid, the query should always return the information of the video (including its ID); this seems to require that the server creates the record for a video if it doesn't exist yet.
My opinion is that although this seems to violate the safety and idempotence requirements for GET requests, it can also be seen as implementation detail (ideally there is a record for every video for every URL at the beginning of time, and lazily creating records on GETs is just a kind of optimization).
Nonsense, it doesn't violate anything.
If "every valid resource name" has a "valid representation", how that representation is manifested is an internal detail that's outside scope.
Your GET is idempotent. Just because you create a new row in a DB on first access doesn't make it not so.
When you GET /missingurl, you get a representation -- not a 404, but a 200 and some kind of result. This representation could also just be a templated boilerplate that all entities get (only with the URL linked filled in).
Whether you simply print some templated boilerplate, or create a row in the DB, the representation to the client is the same. They make the request, they get the representation -- all the time, all the same. That's idempotent. The fact "something happens" on the backend in an implementation detail hidden from the client.
I want to ask if exsist a way in xades4j to made multiple signature.
For multiple signature i mean not countersignature, but a double independent sign to the same document, the resulting signature will have 2 or more signature object. In pratice a signer can take a xml signed document as input and resign it.
In other way i need a method to take as input a xml signed file and get as output the original xml document.
Thanks,
Michele
The "multiple signature" you've described seems to be specific of your use-case. As a library XAdES4j doesn't have that out of the box, but won't stop you from doing it. You just need to compose the references on each signature in the appropriate way and use a signer twice (probably you don't want to apply the second signature over the first one).
Likewise, there's no method to obtain the "original xml document", because the signed resources maybe even be other than xml. That's something that likely belongs to your application logic.
Pretty new to all this REST stuff.
I'm designing my API, and am not sure what I'm supposed to return from a search query. I was assuming I would just return all objects that match the query in their entirety, but after reading up a bit about HATEOAS I am thinking I should be returning a list of URI's instead?
I can see that this could help with caching of items, but I'm worried that there will be a lot of overhead generated by the subsequent multiple HTTP requests required to get the actual object info.
Am I misunderstanding? Is it acceptable to return object instances instead or URIs?
I would return a list of resources with links to more details on those resources.
From RESTFull Web Services Cookbook 2010 - Subbu Allamaraju
Design the response of a query as a representation of a collection
resource. Set the appropriate expiration caching headers. If the query
does not match any resources, return an empty collection.
IMHO it is important to always remember that "pure REST" and "real world REST" are two quite different beasts.
How are you returning the list of URIs from your query in the first place? If you return e.g. application/json, this certainly does not tell the client how it is supposed to interpret the content; therefore, the interaction is already being driven by out-of-band information (the client magically already knows where to look for the data it needs) in conflict with HATEOAS.
So, to answer your question: I find it quite acceptable to return object instances instead of URIs -- but be careful because in the general case this means you are generating all this data without knowing if the client is even going to use it. That's why you will see a hybrid approach quite often: the object instances are not full objects (i.e. a portion of the information the server has is not returned), but they do contain a unique identifier that allows the client to fetch the full representation of selected objects if it chooses to do so.
Coming from a lot of frustrating times with WSDL/Soap, I very much like the REST paradigm, but am trying to solve two basic problems in our application, before moving over to REST. The first problem relates to the lack of an interface document. I think I finally see how to handle this situation: One can query his way down from a top-level "/resources" resource using various requests of GET, HEAD, and OPTIONS to find the one needed resource in the correct hypermedia format. Is this the idea? If so, the client need only be provided with a top-level resource URI: http://www.mywebservicesite.com/mywebservice/resources. He will then have to do some searching and possible keep track of what he is discovering, so that he can use the URIs again efficiently in future to do GETs, POSTs, PUTs, and DELETEs. Are there any thoughts on what should happen here?
The other problem is that we cannot use descriptive URLs like /resources/../customer/Madonna/phonenumber. We do have an implementation of opaque URLs we use in the context of a session, and I'm wondering how opaque URLs might be applied to REST. The general problem is how to keep domain-specific details out of URLs, and still benefit from what REST has to offer.
The other problem is that we cannot use descriptive URLs like /resources/../customer/Madonna/phonenumber.
I think you've misunderstood the point of opaque URIs. The notion of opaque URIs is with respect to clients: A client shall not decipher a URI to guess anything of semantic meaning from it. So a service may well have URIs like /resources/.../customer/Madonna/phonenumber, and that's quite a good idea. The URIs should be treated as opaque by clients: not infer from the URI that it represents Madonna's phone number, and that Madonna is a customer of some sort. That knowledge can only be obtained by looking inside the URI itself, or perhaps by remembering where the URI was discovered.
Edit:
A consequence of this is that navigation should happen by links, not by deconstructing the URI. So if you see /resouces/customer/Madonna/phonenumber (and it actually represents Customer Madonna's phone number) you should have links in that resource to point to the Madonna resource: e.g.
{
"phone_number" : "01-234-56",
"customer_URI": "/resources/customer/Madonna"
}
That's the only way to navigate from a phone number resource to a customer resource. An important aspect is that the server implementation might or might not have domain specific information in the URI, The Madonna record might just as well live somewhere else: /resources/customers/byid/81496237. This is why clients should treat URIs as opaque.
Edit 2:
Another question you have (in the comments) is then how a client, with the required no knowledge of the server's URIs is supposed to be able to find anything. Clients have the following possibilities to find resources:
Provide a search interface. This could be done by providing an OpenSearch description document, which tells clients how to search for items. An OpenSearch template can include several variables, and several endpoints, depending on what you're looking for. So if you have a "customer ID" that's unique, you could have the following template: /customers/byid/{proprietary:customerid}", the customerid element needs to be documented somewhere, inside the proprietary namespace. A client can then know how to use such a template.
Provide a custom form. This implies making a custom media type in which you explicitly define how (based on an instance of the document) a URI to a customer can be forged. <customers template="/customers/byid/{id}"/>. The documentation (for the media type) would have to state that the template attribute must be interpreted as a relative URI after the string substitution "{id}" to an actual customer ID.
Provide links to all resources. Some resources aren't innumerable, so you can simply make a link to each and every one of them, optionally including identifying information along with the links. This could also be done in a custom media type: <customer id="12345" href="/customer/byid/12345"/>.
It should be noted that #1 and #2 are two ways of saying the same thing: Clients are allowed to create URIs if they
haven't got the URI structure a priori
a media type exists for which the documentation states that URIs should be created
This is much the same way as a web browser has no idea of any URI structure on the web, except for the rules laid out in the definition of HTML forms, to add a ? and then all the query parameters separated by &.
In theory, if you have a customer with id 12345, then you could actually dispense with the href, since you could plug the customer id 12345 into #1 or #2. It's more common to actually provide real links between resources, rather than always relying on lookup or search techniques.
I haven't really used web RPC systems (WSDL/Soap), but i think the 'interface document' is there mostly to allow client libraries to create the service API, right? if so, REST shouldn't need it, because the verbs are already defined and don't really need to be documented again.
AFAIUI, the REST way is to document the structure of each resource (usually encoded in XML or JSON). In that document, you'll also have to document the relationship between those resources. In my case, a resource is often a container of other resources (sometimes more than one type), therefore the structure doc specifies what field holds a list of URLs pointing to the contained resources. Ideally, only one unique resource will need a single, fixed (documented) URL. everithing else follows from there.
The URL 'style' is meaningless to the client, since it shouldn't 'construct' an URL. Every URL it needs should be already constructed on a resource field. That let's you change the URL structure without changing the client (that has saved tons of time to me). Your URLs can be as opaque or as descriptive as you like. (personally, i don't like text keys or slugs; my keys are all BIGINTs or UUIDs)
I am currently building a REST "agent" that addresses the first part of your question. The agent offers a temporary bookmarking service. The client code that is interacting with the agent can request that an URL be bookmarked using some identifier. If the client code needs to retrieve that representation again, it simply asks the agent for the url that corresponds to the saved bookmark and then navigates to that bookmark. Currently those bookmarks are not persisted so they only last for the lifetime of the client application, but I have found it a useful mechanism for accessing commonly used resources. E.g. The root representation provides a login link. I bookmark that link and if the client ever receives a 401 then I can redirect to the "login" bookmark.
To address an issue you mentioned in a comment, the agent also has the ability to store retrieved representations in a dictionary. If it becomes necessary to aggregate and manipulate multiple representations at the same time then I can simply request that the agent store the current representation in a dictionary associated to a key and then continue navigating to the next resource. Once the client has accumulated all the necessary representation it can do what it needs to do.
This is one of those little detail (and possibly religious) questions. Let's assume we're constructing a REST architecture, and for definiteness lets assume the service needs three parameters, x, y, and z. Reading the various works about REST, it would seem that this should be expressed as a URI like
http://myservice.example.com/service/ x / y / z
Having written a lot of CGIs in the past, it seems about as natural to express this
http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val,y=val,z=val
Is there any particular reason to prefer the all-slashes form?
The reason is small but here it is.
Cool URI's Don't Change.
The http://myservice.example.com/resource/x/y/z/ form makes a claim in front of God and everybody that this is the path to a specific resource.
Note that I changed the name. There may be a service involved, but the REST principle is that you're describing a specific web resource, named /x/y/z/.
The http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val,y=val,z=val form doesn't make as strong a claim. It says there's a piece of code named service that will try to do some sort of query. No guarantees.
Query parameters are rarely "cool". Take a look at the Google Chart API. Should that use a /full/path/notation for all of the fields? Would each URL be cool if it did?
Query parameters are useful. Optional fields can be omitted. New keys can be added to support new functionality. Over time, old fields can be deprecated and removed. Doing this is clumsier with a /path/notation .
Quoting from http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/08/11/rest.html
URI Opacity [BP]
The creator of a URI decides the encoding
of the URI, and users should not derive
metadata from the URI itself. URI opacity
only applies to the path of a URI. The
query string and fragment have special
meaning that can be understood by users.
There must be a shared vocabulary between
a service and its consumers.
This sounds like query strings are what you want.
One downside to query strings is that the are unordered. The GET ending with "?x=1&y=2" is different than that ending with "?y=2&x=1". This means the browser and any other intermediate systems won't be able to cache it, because caching is done based on the full URL. If this is a concern, then generate the query string in a well-defined order.
While constructing URIs this is the priniciple I follow. I don't know whether it is perfectly acceptable in all cases
Say for instance, that I have to get the details of an employee, then the URI will be of the form:
GET /employees/1/ and not GET /employees?id=1 since I treat every employee as a resource and the whole URI "employees/{id}" is used in identification of the resource.
On the other hand, if I have algorithmic operations that do not identify a specific resource as such,but merely require inputs to the algorithm which in turn identify the resource, then I use query strings.
For instance GET /employees?empname='%Bob%'&maxResults=100 might give me all employees whose names have the word Bob in them, with the maximum results returned by the query limited to 100.
Hope this answers your question
URIs are strictly split into a hierarchical part (the path) and a non-hierarchical path (the query), and both serve to identify the resource
Tthe URI spec itself (RFC 3986) clearly sets the path and the query portion of a URI as equal.
Section 3.3:
The path component contains data [...] that along with [the] query component
serves to identify a resource.
Section 3.4:
The query component contains [...] data that, along with
[...] the path component serves to identify a resource
So your choice in using x/y/z versus x=val&y=val&z=val has mainly to do if x, y or z are hierarchical in nature or if they're non-hierarchical, and if you can perceive them as always being hierarchical or non-hierarchical for the foreseeable future, along with any technical limitations you might be having on selecting one over the other.
But to answer your question, as others have noted: Neither is more RESTful than the other, since they both end up identifying a resource.
If the resource is the service, independent of parameters, it should be
http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val&y=val&z=val
This is a GET query. One of the principles behind REST is that you GET to read (but not modify!) the resource; you can POST to modify a resource & get a response; you can PUT to write to a resource; and you can DELETE to remove a resource.
If the resource specific with those parameters is a persistent resource, it needs a name. You could (if you organized your webservice this way) POST to http://myservice.example.com/service?x=val&y=val&z=val to create a particular instance of the service and have it return an ID to name this instance, e.g.
http://myservice.example.com/service/12312549
then use GET/POST/PUT/DELETE to interact with that instance.
First of all, defining URIs as part of your API violates a constraint of the REST architecture. You cannot do that and call your API RESTful.
Secondly, the reason query parameters are bad for non-query resource access is that they are generally not cached. It is also a violation of HTTP standards.
A URL with slashes like /x/y/z/ would impose a hierarchy and is not suited for the exact case of just passing three parameters.
If, like you said, x y z are indeed just parameters and the order is not important, it would be more RESTful to use semicolons:
http://myservice.example.com/service/x;y;z/
If your "service" however is just an algorithm that works the same with different parameters, there would also be nothing unRESTful with using ?x=val format.