I'm writing an api. To this point I've been using a route:
http://api.com/resource
and I pass in an action that I want to do to the resource within a json field and go from there. Is this an ideal or preferable situation from both a programmer and user perspective?
Or,
Would something like:
http://api.com/resource/action
be more useful, restful, right (take you pick). Or does it not matter at all? It works as it is, but I'm aiming for public consumption and I'd like to get any problems I'm unaware of with this out of the way before it gets more difficult to change.
Edit:
To add more detail the action I'm not concerned about is of GET, POST, etc. I have a route:
http://api.com/thing
This is a POST route, it creates a thing. Things aren't being stored in a database or anywhere at this point, so the thing created is immediately returned with the response. Users can specify that thing be returned painted a color: red, yellow, or green. From a user perspective, is it more useful to specify the color requirement as part of the post data above or to have routes like:
http://api.com/thing/red
where posting to returns a red thing.
Basically, the action doesn't need to be specified (in the URL or in the data sent) as HTTP verbs, in a REST approach, are used to describe actions to perform on resources. So, your two solutions are not really "REST compliant". What you should do first is combining your route http://api.com/resources with some HTTP verbs in order to:
Create a resource is: POST http://api.com/resources
Read a resource is: GET http://api.com/resources/
Update (replacing actually) a resource is: PUT http://api.com/resources/
Delete a resource is: DELETE http://api.com/resources/
As usual, following conventions is better. Your two solutions are not ideal for a programmer with a taste for conventions and best practices. However, your second solution is readable and explicit. That means if you really want to choose between your two solutions, the second one seems better. But, if you want to update your API to follow more REST conventions, you should consider your resource as a real resource and use HTTP verbs.
I recommend you these two presentations about REST APIs:
http://fr.slideshare.net/Wombert/designing-http-interfaces-and-restful-web-services-dpc2012-20120608
https://speakerdeck.com/u/nicola/p/developing-restful-web-apis-with-python-flask-and-mongodb
You may be interested by this other question and the answer I gave: Resource and Action URI convention for REST.
Edit: according to your new question, send all data as post data, even your color. It will be more consistent. Why should it be different anyway? You should change the URI only if you describe different resources. If the color is just a property of a thing then you don't describe two resources and you should send the color with all other post data.
Related
I'm designing a REST API where, amongst others, there are two objects.
Journey
Report
For each Journey there are many Reports enroute, and each Report has exactly one associated Journey.
A user might create a Journey using the API as follows...
POST /journey/
Then retrieve the details...
GET /journey/1226/
The first question is, if a user wanted to post an Report to their Journey, which is the 'correct' URL structure that the API should impose? This seems intuitive to me...
POST /journey/1226/report/
...or is this the case...
POST /report/
...whereby in the latter, the Journey ID is passed in the request body somewhere?
The second question is, how might one go about implementing the first case in a tool such as the Django REST framework?
Thanks!
The URL/URI structure is almost completely irrelevant. It is nice to be able to read it, or easily change or even guess it, but that is it. There is no "requirement" official or unwritten how they should look like.
The point is however, that you supply the URIs to your clients in your responses. Each GET will get you a representation that contains links to the next "states" that your client can reach. This means the server has full control over URI structure, the client usually has to only know the "start" or "homepage" URI, and that's it.
Here is an article which discusses this question, has some good points: http://www.ben-morris.com/hackable-uris-may-look-nice-but-they-dont-have-much-to-do-with-rest-and-hateoas/
Pass for the second question :) I didn't use that particular framework.
I am attempting to write a Restful API to control a CMS. There are Objects (e.g., An instance of an Article) and each object has multiple Drafts. To work on an object's Drafts, I built a URL like this:
/cms/objects/{objectId}/drafts/{draftId}
draftIds are not unique unless you provide an objectId.
Hopefully I haven't already messed up with this. But now I have multiple verbs I want to perform on each Draft. Here's a list of verbs:
CLONE, UNPUBLISH, PUBLISH, UNLOCK, LOCK
The way I approached this is to create an endpoint that has an operation query param. And here's an example of how you use it:
POST /cms/objects/3232/drafts/1?operation=CLONE
POST /cms/objects/3232/drafts/1?operation=LOCK
Is there a better way to do this? I'm actually upgrading an already existing API, and the way you used to do something like this is like so:
POST cms/objects/3232/duplicate-draft?source-draft-id=1
POST cms/objects/3232/lock?draft-id=1
I prefer my way, because in my eyes it's more consistent (though I am biased). Is there a better way to do this?
By the way, I am aware of this question that is very similar. The reason I'm creating this new one is that mine is laser focused on the "multiple verb" aspect and his isn't. His is more like, "how do I do multiple verbs and can you teach me lots of other stuff about Restful APIs, too?"
Also, I feel that the accepted answer on that question does not sufficiently address this (see his point 2). For example, my Drafts, do not have a lock=true in their body so I can't easily map the advice from his Change Password section. My Drafts have two fields to represent if the Draft is locked: The user name of the locker and the user id of the locker. It would be inconvenient to have the client pass these both in so my intent above is to abstract that work away from the client.
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.
I understand how to use REST for doing general entity interactions - using urls names to map to entities and the HTTP verbs to map to actions on those entities. But what is the generally accepted way of looking at "actions" more like RPC?
For example, let's say I want to send a command for the device to reset? There's no real "entity" here or do I do something like POST to http://mydevice/device/reset?
/device/reset or /system/reset are ok.
The REST "design pattern" does encourage you to NOT use any verbs.. You could do:
POST http://mydevice/system/state
<stateType>RESET</stateType>
Related information:
How to create REST URL’s without verbs?
Threads tagged with restful-url
I don't think that's the case to use POST. The "RESET action" is a idempotent action (if you call it n times you will always get the same result), so IMHO you should use a PUT call instead POST (as POST is not idempotent).
Also, as you are Putting a resource, you can use
PUT http://system
<device>
<status>RESET</status>
</device>
or
PUT http://system/status/reset
But I think the first one is "more restful", since you are putting a resource, while the second one you just use the URL.
I usually name the entity "system" or something like that. So you do "/system/reset". You've chosen device so that works too.
But yea, I usually consider these types of actions to be updates, which would use the POST method. So I think you are right to POST to /device/reset
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.