Skip to main content

Give it a REST

I'm wrapping up a REST layer to the service backend I've been developing for my still-unnamed-employer (find out when we launch, real soon now!). I had never developed a service under the "REST" acronym before, so my boss gave me a crash course, I read some things, I thought I got it. REST, a buzzword in its own right, is like stapling smoke to water when you try to define it. That isn't because its vague, its because most of the people who talk about it don't know what they're talking about.

Maybe I'm one of them and I shouldn't be posting this.

REST is Not:
  • HTTP
  • XML
  • RPC
  • A protocol, format, or even much of a specification
Rest is:
  • An idea(l)
  • Agnostic on just about every specification associated with it
Requests on a REST Service are:
  • Atomic. No request relies on any other made before or after it.
  • Self Authenticating. Every request must include any credentials. See point 1.
  • Self Describing. This is most commonly XML, and sometimes people think it must be, but it can be anything. We use JSON.
Some of the most interesting things I've learned working with a REST service are the things that do not fit the model well. No model fits every need perfectly, and REST doesn't escape that fact, I'm afraid.

In particular, you are not always transfering a state. There is a distinct difference between state transfer and a request to perform some operation upon a state. Unfortunately, any ways around some of the problems posed are directly rejected by the rules of REST.

For example, say you want to provide as a service a simple counter. You expose PUT on /counter/foobar to register a new counter, and then GET on /counter/foobar will provide the current level of the counter. Following the rules of REST, how do you provide an interface to safely increment such a counter? We can not perform a GET and a PUT, because it violates that each request be self contained, and it will break when any other client of the service is incrementing at the same time. We need a single operation to alter the state, without performing a state transfer.

The best thing you can do is use POST on a resource, and transfer a request to increment. It seems to violate the tenents of REST that the resource you POST will not actually reside at some permenant location, as they are throw-away requests. You either have to live with a not-exactly-REST interface (but, isn't that it works the important thing?) or actually keep requests around for some time. Maybe put them at some location, where they can be checked for review of their status.

I don't know if this is helpful to anyone else writing REST services, but the information around isn't always accurate, so why should I worry if I am?

Comments

Andrew Dalke said…
""""It seems to violate the tenents of REST that the resource you POST will not actually reside at some permenant location, as they are throw-away requests. """

That's not a tenent of REST. Think of submitting a blog entry. You POST to a resource which creates another URI (for the entry itself) and updates the main page.

For a counter you would not PUT at all, except perhaps to (re)set a counter. You could POST to a counter and have it increment by one, or GET from the counter to see its current state. Or use two URLs, one for each.

POST is a catch-all verb which has no explicit limitations on what it can do. GET should be side-effect free, PUT should only modify the resource PUT'ed to, and DELETE should only delete the resource PUT'ed do.

They can have side effect, eg, deleting an object likely means a resource listing all items in a collection gets updated. But the side effect should fit with the action.

POST, though, is free to do anything. Hence proxies and caches can't make any assumptions about its effect.
Anonymous said…
Agreed... PUT is when you are placing (uploading) a resource to a pre-known location. Thus, /foobar/counter/1 would reset the counter to one. POSTing to a counter would increment it by one. If you were looking for a truly atomic "increment only if the current counter is less than 5" then you would use POST again.

Here's the basic difference: with RPC (i.e., XML-RPC, SOAP, etc), you call /getperson?name=jamie while with REST you'd call /person/jamie with a GET command.

In other words, with REST you call or create a resource -- a database record, an object in the OOP sense, the model -- with one of three basic VERBS, GET, PUT, or DELETE. (POST can be for RPC-like behavior when you don't actually know what the resource might be called.)

I.e., instead of calling a FUNCTION or METHOD and pass what object you want to call as a parameter, you instead call the remote object and pass the function (GET,PUT, DELETE) you want as the parameter.

It's actually not too hard, just requires an adjustment in thinking, but I agree -- most people that think they know what REST is, don't!

Popular posts from this blog

CARDIAC: The Cardboard Computer

I am just so excited about this. CARDIAC. The Cardboard Computer. How cool is that? This piece of history is amazing and better than that: it is extremely accessible. This fantastic design was built in 1969 by David Hagelbarger at Bell Labs to explain what computers were to those who would otherwise have no exposure to them. Miraculously, the CARDIAC (CARDboard Interactive Aid to Computation) was able to actually function as a slow and rudimentary computer.  One of the most fascinating aspects of this gem is that at the time of its publication the scope it was able to demonstrate was actually useful in explaining what a computer was. Could you imagine trying to explain computers today with anything close to the CARDIAC? It had 100 memory locations and only ten instructions. The memory held signed 3-digit numbers (-999 through 999) and instructions could be encoded such that the first digit was the instruction and the second two digits were the address of memory to operate on

The Range of Content on Planet Python

I've gotten a number of requests lately to contribute only Python related material to the Planet Python feeds and to be honest these requests have both surprised and insulted me, but they've continued. I am pretty sure they've come from a very small number of people, but they have become consistent. This is probably because of my current habit of writing about NaNoWriMo every day and those who aren't interested not looking forward to having the rest of the month reading about my novel. Planet Python will be getting a feed of only relevant posts in the future, but I'm going to be honest: I am kind of upset about it. I don't care if anyone thinks it is unreasonable of me to be upset about it, because the truth is Planet Python means something to me. It was probably the first thing I did that I considered "being part of the community" when I submitted my meager RSS feed to be added some seven years ago. My blog and my name on the list of authors at Plan

Pythonic Defined

Introduction Losing is Good Strings Dictionaries Conclusion Introduction Veterans and novices alike of Python will hear the term "pythonic" thrown around, and even a number of the veterans don't know what it means. There are times I do not know what it means, but that doesn't mean I can define a pretty good idea of what "pythonic" really means. Now, it has been defined at times as being whatever the BDFL decides, but we'll pull that out of the picture. I want to talk about what the word means for us today, and how it applied to what we do in the real world. Languages have their strengths and their idioms (ways of doing things), and when you exploit those you embrace the heart of that language. You can often tell when a programmer writing in one language is actually more comfortable with another, because the code they right is telltale of the other language. Java developers are notorious for writing Java in every language they get their hands on. Ho