I'm designing a RESTful service aligning to HATEOAS principles as much as possible. As a result, I need a way to have my cool URLs return a list of links describing available options. I'm using HAL-JSON to facilitate the data format so that's all good, but I'm now considering what HTTP method should pull this.
I'm sure I could stick with a simple GET, but from reading over the HTTP RFC, it seems that OPTIONS might fit the bill here. My only concern is in bold:
9.2 OPTIONS
The OPTIONS method represents a request for information about the
communication options available on the request/response chain
identified by the Request-URI. This method allows the client to
determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource,
or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or
initiating a resource retrieval.
Responses to this method are not cacheable.
Could someone with more experience on the standards side of the web please explain why this is the case? In my view, you would certainly want clients caching this result at least for a short period of time, as in a fully HATEOAS system this call is likely to be made quite frequently to traverse the rel links to arrive at the operation you're looking for.
I'd also love some opinions on using OPTIONS vs a simple GET for retrieval of operations from a cool URL.
The OPTION HTTP request returns the available methods which can be performed on a resource. (The objects methods)
I can not say for certain why you can not cache the response, but its most likely a precaution. Caching would have little value for the OPTION http method.
A Resource is "any information that can be given a name", that name is its URI. the response from the OPTIONs request is only a list of methods that can be requested on this resource (e.g. "GET PUT POST" maybe the response). To actually get at the information stored, you must use the GET method.
It's not cacheable, period. Sorry.
Related
Perhaps a partial duplicate of What is the correct http verb for a Download in a REST API? , though that is referring to a file download specifically.
In terms of CRUD operations, POST is the recommended HTTP verb for creating a resource. Does this still apply to creating resources, even if those resources are not persisted on the server? (i.e. stored in a database or similar) For example, generating some code based on code the client sent or converting a file and returning it to the client.
With such types of functionality, the server has indeed "created" something, though only in passing, returning or streaming it to the client, and not storing it in the traditional CRUD sense. I've always used POST for such functionality, but now I'm starting to double guess myself and think that those could have been GET endpoints the whole time.
Seems like a weird gray area in which neither HTTP verbs GET or POST completely match.
Is POST the correct HTTP verb for resources that are produced by but not stored by the server?
Yes - or alternatively, it's the least incorrect choice to use.
POST serves many useful purposes in HTTP, including the general purpose of “this action isn’t worth standardizing.” -- Fielding, 2009
In 2020, the HTTP-WG adopted a proposal to define a method token for "GET with a body", which would give as an alternative to POST when we want to indicate to general purpose components that the request has safe semantics, so there should eventually be some registered method that is a better fit.
There is no gray area here.
If the state of the server changes, use an unsafe method like POST. If it does not, you can use a safe methof like GET, as long as you stay within the documented limitations of GET (no request body).
If you're looking for a safe method that does take a request body, you may want to look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-method-w-body/.
Whenever I have to create a RESTful web service and the use case implies on getting data based on a set of search criteria, I always opted for a POST request with the parameters in the body instead of a GET request for all the obvious reasons. I've seen it a dozen of times so I figured is was best practice.
Most recently I stumbled upon this interesting blog article by Evert Pot where he comments on the downsides of the POST verb and simply notes on using the REPORT verb instead. He also states that "its semantics are well defined and it works everywhere".
After reading the post I've been trying to find some more information on this REPORT verb but not much can be found. I know it was part of RFC-3253 as a way to obtain information about a resource but other than that I am clueless.
My question are the following:
Is REPORT really a better alternative than POST in the case of requesting a resource based on a set of search criteria?
Is it wise to start using it or is it too risky? I'm seeing lots of
HTTP Method REPORT not supported issues from various tools and frameworks.
Why does it seem like it is neglected over the years and why do we
know so little about it?
What could other valid use-cases be for using this verb?
Thank you in advance.
The REPORT method is defined in the webdav scope, including the Depth header field, and the DAV:version-tree report request.
Using it outside webdav you may incur in some unspecified behavior.
A REPORT request is an extensible mechanism for obtaining information
about a resource.
This is semantically different from a POST request, where you usually transfer the
expected representation you want to convey to the server.
Consider that in the HTTP method registry REPORT is marked as "safe" and "idempotent", while that's not the case for POST
the value of a report can depend on additional information
specified in the REPORT request body and in the REPORT request
headers.
Those are tied to webdav. To foster REPORT usage we should extend its definition and disentangle it from webdav.
Earlier this week, I had to do something which feels like a semantics violation. Let me explain.
I was making a simple AJAX client application, which was to make a request to a service with a given number of parameters. Since the whole app is basically read-only, I thought that using HTTP GET was the way to go. Some of the parameters that I had to pass were simple (such as the sort order, or page number).
However, one of the required parameters could be of variable length, and this made me worry. Since I was encoding all of the parameters in the querystring of the GET request, it seemed to me that this placed an unnecessary upper limit of (roughly) 2000 characters for the request URL. And regardless, I didn't like seeing 500-character-long request URLs.
So, since a POST request doesn't have a limitation like that, I decided to switch. But this doesn't feel right. I am under the impression that a POST denotes modification of data - but I'm using it for a simple read-only request.
Is there a better way to do this? To perform a GET, with many parameters? I've heard of one method - where you perform a preliminary POST of the parameters themselves, and then perform a GET. But, this technique leaves much to be desired.
But looking past this specific case, what are the real semantics and limitations of HTTP request methods? And why does GET not support any kind of parameter payload? Using the querystring in the URL almost feels like a hack to me.
A few points on this issue:
The HTTP spec (RFC 2616) doesn't forbit GET requests to have parameters, so it's not a matter of the semantics of HTTP GET itself. However, many HTTP stacks (for clients, services, or proxies) forbid bodies in HTTP requests, the fact that you can't use them is mostly an implementation detail (quite prevalent) than a semantic issue with the HTTP GET requests
Similarly, the limitation of the URI (or query string) length isn't specified on the RFC either. It's mostly a security mitigation implemented by several HTTP server stacks to prevent a bad client from consuming server resources (for example, in IIS/ASP.NET the default limit is 2k but you can increase it via some elements in web.config). Again, it's not a semantic but a practical issue.
POST requests do indicate data modification if you're following the REST philosophy, but there are many examples of HTTP POST requests used for read-only operations. SOAP uses POST in all of its requests, regardless of whether the operation it is calling is a "safe" or a "modifying" one. So you can use POST for those operations as well. However, by deviating from the REST (and the "canonical" HTTP) usage, you'll lose some of the features of the protocol, such as caching which can be applied for GET requests, but not for POST.
Your example of using two requests (POST with parameters + GET to "get" the results) seems overkill. As I mentioned, POST requests don't necessarily mean modifying resources, so you don't have to create a new "protocol" (POST+GET) to access your operation when one request is enough.
What is the REST protocol and what does it differ from HTTP protocol ?
REST is a design style for protocols, it was developed by Roy Fielding in his PhD dissertation and formalised the approach behind HTTP/1.0, finding what worked well with it, and then using this more structured understanding of it to influence the design of HTTP/1.1. So, while it was after-the-fact in a lot of ways, REST is the design style behind HTTP.
Fielding's dissertation can be found at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm and is very much worth reading, and also very readable. PhD dissertations can be pretty hard-going, but this one is wonderfully well-described and very readable to those of us without a comparable level of Computer Science. It helps that REST itself is pretty simple; it's one of those things that are obvious after someone else has come up with it. (It also for that matter encapsulates a lot of things that older web developers learnt themselves the hard way in one simple style, which made reading it a major "a ha!" moment for many).
Other application-level protocols as well as HTTP can also use REST, but HTTP is the classic example.
Because HTTP uses REST, all uses of HTTP are using a REST system. The description of a web application or service as RESTful or non-RESTful relates to whether it takes advantage of REST or works against it.
The classic example of a RESTful system is a "plain" website without cookies (cookies aren't always counter to REST, but they can be): Client state is changed by the user clicking a link which loads another page, or doing GET form queries which brings results. POST form queries can change both server and client state (the server does something on the basis of the POST, and then sends a hypertext document that describes the new state). URIs describe resources, but the entity (document) describing it may differ according to content-type or language preferred by the user. Finally, it's always been possible for browsers to update the page itself through PUT and DELETE though this has never been very common and if anything is less so now.
The classic example of a non-RESTful system using HTTP is something which treats HTTP as if it was a transport protocol, and with every request sends a POST of data to the same URI which is then acted upon in an RPC-like manner, possibly with the connection itself having shared state.
A RESTful computer-readable (i.e. not a website in a browser, but something used programmatically) system would obtain information about the resources concerned by GETting URI which would then return a document (e.g. in XML, but not necessarily) which would describe the state of the resource, including URIs to related resources (hypermedia therefore), change their state through PUTting entities describing the new state or DELETEing them, and have other actions performed by POSTing.
Key advantages are:
Scalability: The lack of shared state makes for a much more scalable system (demonstrated to me massively when I removed all use of session state from a heavily hit website, while I was expecting it to give a bit of extra performance, even a long-time anti-session advocate like myself was blown-away by the massive gain from removing what had been pretty slim use of sessions, it wasn't even why I had been removing them!)
Simplicity: There are a few different ways in which REST is simpler than more RPC-like models, in particular there are only a few "verbs" that are ever possible, and each type of resource can be reasoned about in reasonable isolation to the others.
Lightweight Entities: More RPC-like models tend to end up with a lot of data in the entities sent both ways just to reflect the RPC-like model. This isn't needed. Indeed, sometimes a simple plain-text document is all that is really needed in a given case, in which case with REST, that's all we would need to send (though this would be an "end-result" case only, since plain-text doesn't link to related resources). Another classic example is a request to obtain an image file, RPC-like models generally have to wrap it in another format, and perhaps encode it in some way to let it sit within the parent format (e.g. if the RPC-like model uses XML, the image will need to be base-64'd or similar to fit into valid XML). A RESTful model would just transmit the file the same as it does to a browser.
Human Readable Results: Not necessarily so, but it is often easy to build a RESTful webservice where the results are relatively easy to read, which aids debugging and development no end. I've even built one where an XSLT meant that the entire thing could be used by humans as a (relatively crude) website, though it wasn't primarily for human-use (essentially, the XSLT served as a client to present it to users, it wasn't even in the spec, just done to make my own development easier!).
Looser binding between server and client: Leads to easier later development or moves in how the system is hosted. Indeed, if you keep to the hypertext model, you can change the entire structure, including moving from single-host to multiple hosts for different services, without changing client code at all.
Caching: For the GET operations where the client obtains information about the state of a resource, standard HTTP caching mechanisms allow both for statements that the resource won't meaningfully change until a certain date at the earliest (no need to query at all until then) or that it hasn't changed since the last query (send a couple hundred bytes of headers saying this rather than several kilobytes of data). The improvement in performance can be immense (big enough to move the performance of something from the point where it is impractical to use to the point where performance is no longer a concern, in some cases).
Availability of toolkits: Because it works at a relatively simple level, if you have a webserver you can build a RESTful system's server and if you have any sort of HTTP client API (XHR in browser javascript, HttpWebRequest in .NET, etc) you can build a RESTful system's client.
Resiliance: In particular, the lack of shared state means that a client can die and come back into use without the server knowing, and even the server can die and come back into use without the client knowing. Obviously communications during that period will fail, but once the server is back online things can just continue as they were. This also really simplifies the use of web-farms for redundancy and performance - each server acts like it's the only server there is, and it doesn't matter that its actually only dealing with a fraction of the requests from a given client.
REST is an approach that leverages the HTTP protocol, and is not an alternative to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transfer
Data is uniquely referenced by URL and can be acted upon using HTTP operations (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE, etc). A wide variety of mime types are supported for the message/response but XML and JSON are the most common.
For example to read data about a customer you could use an HTTP get operation with the URL http://www.example.com/customers/1. If you want to delete that customer, simply use the HTTP delete operation with the same URL.
The Java code below demonstrates how to make a REST call over the HTTP protocol:
String uri =
"http://www.example.com/customers/1";
URL url = new URL(uri);
HttpURLConnection connection =
(HttpURLConnection) url.openConnection();
connection.setRequestMethod("GET");
connection.setRequestProperty("Accept", "application/xml");
JAXBContext jc = JAXBContext.newInstance(Customer.class);
InputStream xml = connection.getInputStream();
Customer customer =
(Customer) jc.createUnmarshaller().unmarshal(xml);
connection.disconnect();
For a Java (JAX-RS) example see:
http://bdoughan.blogspot.com/2010/08/creating-restful-web-service-part-45.html
REST is not a protocol, it is a generalized architecture for describing a stateless, caching client-server distributed-media platform. A REST architecture can be implemented using a number of different communication protocols, though HTTP is by far the most common.
REST is not a protocol, it is a way of exposing your application, mostly done over HTTP.
for example, you want to expose an api of your application that does getClientById
instead of creating a URL
yourapi.com/getClientById?id=4
you can do
yourapi.com/clients/id/4
since you are using a GET method it means that you want to GET data
You take advantage over the HTTP methods: GET/DELETE/PUT
yourapi.com/clients/id/4 can also deal with delete, if you send a delete method and not GET, meaning that you want to dekete the record
All the answers are good.
I hereby add a detailed description of REST and how it uses HTTP.
REST = Representational State Transfer
REST is a set of rules, that when followed, enable you to build a distributed application that has a specific set of desirable constraints.
It is stateless, which means that ideally no connection should be maintained between the client and server.
It is the responsibility of the client to pass its context to the server and then the server can store this context to process the client's further request. For example, session maintained by server is identified by session identifier passed by the client.
Advantages of Statelessness:
Web Services can treat each method calls separately.
Web Services need not maintain the client's previous interaction.
This in turn simplifies application design.
HTTP is itself a stateless protocol unlike TCP and thus RESTful Web Services work seamlessly with the HTTP protocols.
Disadvantages of Statelessness:
One extra layer in the form of heading needs to be added to every request to preserve the client's state.
For security we may need to add a header info to every request.
HTTP Methods supported by REST:
GET: /string/someotherstring:
It is idempotent(means multiple calls should return the same results every time) and should ideally return the same results every time a call is made
PUT:
Same like GET. Idempotent and is used to update resources.
POST: should contain a url and body
Used for creating resources. Multiple calls should ideally return different results and should create multiple products.
DELETE:
Used to delete resources on the server.
HEAD:
The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server MUST NOT return a message-body in the response. The meta information contained in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request SHOULD be identical to the information sent in response to a GET request.
OPTIONS:
This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval.
HTTP Responses
Go here for all the responses.
Here are a few important ones:
200 - OK
3XX - Additional information needed from the client and url redirection
400 - Bad request
401 - Unauthorized to access
403 - Forbidden
The request was valid, but the server is refusing action. The user might not have the necessary permissions for a resource, or may need an account of some sort.
404 - Not Found
The requested resource could not be found but may be available in the future. Subsequent requests by the client are permissible.
405 - Method Not Allowed
A request method is not supported for the requested resource; for example, a GET request on a form that requires data to be presented via POST, or a PUT request on a read-only resource.
404 - Request not found
500 - Internal Server Failure
502 - Bad Gateway Error
I am designing a REST service and am trying to weight the pros and cons of using the full array of http verbs and content negotiation vs GET string variables. Does my choice affect cacheability? Neither solution may be right for every area.
Which is best for the crud and queries (e.g. ?action=PUT)?
Which is best for api version picking (e.g. ?version=1.0)?
Which is best for return data type(e.g. ?type=json)?
CRUD/Queries are best represented with HTTP verbs. A create and update is usually a PUT or POST. A retrieve would be a GET. Deletes would be a DELETE. Thats the generally mapping. The main point is that a GET doesn't cause side effects, and that the verbs do what you'd expect them to do.
Putting the action in the URI is OK if thats the -only- way to pass it (e.g, the http client library doesn't allow you to send non-GET/POST requests). Most libraries do, though, so its strongly advised not to pass the verb via the URL.
The "best" way to version the API would be using HTTP headers on a per-request basis; this lets clients upgrade/downgrade specific requests instead of every single one. Of course, that granularity of versioning needs to be baked in at the start and could severely complicate the server-side code. Most people just use the URL used the access the servers. A longer explanation is in a blog post by Peter Williams, "Versioning Rest Web Services"
There is no best return data type; it depends on your app. JSON might be easier for Ajax websites, whereas XML might be easier for complicated structures you want to query with Xpath. Protocol Buffers are a third option. Its also debated whether its better to put the return protocol is best specified in the URL or in the HTTP headers.
For the most part, headers will have the largest affect on caching, since proxies are suppose to respect them when told, as are user agents (obviously UA's behave differently, though). Caching based on URL alone is very dependent on the layers. Some user agents don't cache anything with a query string (Safari, iirc), and proxies are free to cache or not cache as they feel appropriate.