I have an ASP.NET web service running that accepts both HTTP POST and SOAP requests. Are there any disadvantages to using a simple HTTP POST to get the data from the WS instead of using SOAP over HTTP?
I can't think of anything else other than the support for transmission of complex data types, and I don't think I'll need that in this project.
Thanks,
Teja.
The clue is in the question...
using a simple HTTP POST to get the data
A POST is not a GET, a GET is a GET.
If you're the only person operating on the WS then it's not a problem as long as you are handling your incoming connections properly. If it is open to outsiders then I would recommend sticking to conventions, they are there to save us from ourselves :)
Related
The Prosody server has several modules that allow it to respond to HTTP requests.
For example, mod_http_rest allows me to make a POST request on port 5280 with an XMPP stanza as the payload, and the Prosody server responds by sending that stanza on its way.
However, I am looking for a module that would do the opposite: i.e. take an XMPP message received by the usual means, and make an HTTP POST request to a specified server with that message as the payload.
I can't seem to find any module that will do this. Is there such a thing?
If not, is there any functionality available in the Prosody API that would allow such a module to be written?
Alternatively, are there good reasons why this might be a bad idea?
To answer your question, yes, it's possible for Prosody to make HTTP requests to external services.
The module you describe (take XMPP and forward it over HTTP) did not exist, but there's little reason for it not to. So I just published a module that provides this feature: https://modules.prosody.im/mod_component_http.html
I dont known if there is a module already for that but there is a way to achieve it yourself. I made my own module some months back for specific purposes and I used net.http which as the Docs say:
Is an API for making non-blocking HTTP requests to remote servers.
So you should check the Docs from here so you can use it like:
local req = require "net.http"
req.request( URL, opts, callBack )
Where opts are your options in json, and callBack is a function that defines what you want to do with the response.
I hope it helps.
In how many ways can an HTTP request be generated?
There are endless ways how you can create and from where you can send HTTP requests to a server. Actually your server has no idea, what the origin of such a request is (if it's AJAX or "regular" request, or sent from a console application or ...)
But there are HTTP methods (HTTP verbs) that (can) tell the server about the intent of the request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Verbs#Request_methods
Also you can set headers in a request, for example the content-type or the accepted encoding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_header_fields
Most JavaScript libraries for example set the (non-standard) HTTP header X-Requested-With, so your application can differentiate between regular and ajax requests.
You see, it's even possible to set your own, non-standard headers. There are endless possible combinations...
HttpRequest is a C# class that wraps a petition sent by a client during a Web request.
There are many ways to generate it. The most usual one happens when your browser connects to an ASP.NET website.
You can, for example, create your own custom HttpRequest to petition a specific web page from a C# console application.
Are you trying to achieve something more specific?
I have a program that is supposed to interact with a web server and retrieve a file containing structured data using http and cgi. I have a couple questions:
The cgi script on the server needs to specify a body right? What should the content-type be?
Should I be using POST or GET?
Could anyone tell me a good resource for reading about HTTP?
If you just want to retrieve the resource, I’d use GET. And with GET you don’t need a Content-Type since a GET request has no body. And as of HTTP, I’d suggest you to read the HTTP 1.1 specification.
The content-type specified by the server will depend on what type of data you plan to return. As Jim said if it's JSON you can use 'application/json'. The obvious payload for the request would be whatever data you're sending to the client.
From the servers prospective it shouldn't matter that much. In general if you're not expecting a lot of information from the client I'd set up the server to respond to GET requests as opposed to POST requests. An advantage I like is simply being able to specify what I want in the url (this can't be done if it's expecting a POST request).
I would point you to the rfc for HTTP...probably the best source for information..maybe not the most user friendly way to get your answers but it should have all the answers you need. link text
For (1) the Content-Type depends on the structured data. If it's XML you can use application/xml, JSON can be application/json, etc. Content-Type is set by the server. Your client would ask for that type of content using the Accept header. (Try to use existing data format standards and content types if you can.)
For (2) GET is best (you aren't sending up any data to the server).
I found RESTful Web Services by Richardson and Ruby a very interesting introduction to HTTP. It takes a very strict, but very helpful, view of HTTP.
I'm wondering: if I were a a router, packet inspector, firewall, or other packet-sniffing device (which I'm glad I'm not) would I be able to tell the difference between a traditional HTTP request and an XMLHttpRequest? Less theoretically, is it possible that some ISP or (let's say) cell phone data provider could restrict XMLHttpRequest traffic without interrupting HTTP service?
Thanks.
There's nothing at the packet level to distinguish them because and XMLHttpRequest is an HTTP request. The XML bit refers to the fact that if the response is of an xml Content-Type then the responseXML method will return a DOM Object.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no fundamental difference - so from the point of view of a router etc. you can't tell in general.
But I do believe that most popular Javascript toolkits will add an HTTP header to their XMLHttpRequests to identify them as such. I forget the name, though...
EDIT: Here's an example (top Google hit for "jquery xmlhttprequest header", no quotes) that shows that jQuery apparently sets X-Requested-With to "XMLHttpRequest".
at packet, network, session levels: no.
at application level, that is with an HTTP-specific device like a filtering proxy, maybe.
i'd check the HTTP request headers. they might (just might) have some differences. but i'm sure any difference there would be very browser-specific, and quite probably the right JavaScript code could insert the appropriate headers to make it totally indistinguishable.
in short: check the HTTP headers; but don't expect it to be general, much less useful.
Is it allowable to pass parameters to a web page through the URL (after the question mark) when using the POST method? I know that it works (most of the time, anyways) because my company's webapp does it often, but I don't know if it's actually supported in the standard or if I can rely on this behavior. I'm considering implementing a SOAP request handler that uses a parameter after the question mark to indicate that it is a SOAP request and not a normal HTTP request. The reason for this that the webapp is an IIS extension, so everything is accessed via the same URL (ex: example.com/myisapi.dll?command), so to get the SOAP request to be processed, I need to specify that "command" parameter. There would be one generic command for SOAP, not a specific command for each SOAP action -- those would be specified in the SOAP request itself.
Basically, I'm trying to integrate the Apache Axis2/C library into my webapp by letting the webapp handle the HTTP request and then pass off the incoming SOAP XML to Axis2 for handling if it's a SOAP request. Intuitively, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work, since the URL you're posting to is just an arbitrary URL, as far as all the various components are concerned... it's the server that gives special meaning to the parts after the question mark.
Thanks for any help/insight you can provide.
Lets start with the simple stuff. HTTP GET request variables come from the URI. The URI is a requested resource, and so any webserver should (and apache does) have the entire URI stored in some variable available to the modules or appserver components running within the webserver.
An http POST which is different from an http GET is a separate logical call to the webserver, but it still defines a URI that should process the post. A good webserver (apache being one) will again make the URI available to whatever module or appserver is running within it, then will additionally make available the variables which were sent in the POST headers.
At the point where your application takes control from apache during a POST you should have access to both the GET and POST variables and be able to do whatever control logic you wish, including replying with a SOAP protocol instead of HTML.
If you are asking whether it is possible to send parameters via both GET and POST in a single HTTP request, then the answer is "YES". This is standard functionality that can be used reliably AFAIK.
One such example is sending authentication credentials in two pieces, one over GET and the other through POST so that any attempt to hijack a session would require hijacking both the GET and POST variables.
So in your case, you can use POST to contain the actual SOAP request but test for whether it is a SOAP request based on the parameter passed in GET (or in other words through the URL).
I believe that no standard actually defines the concept of "HTTP parameters" or "request variables". RFC 1738 defines that an URL may have a "search part", which is the substring after the question mark. HTML specifies in the form submission protocol how a browser processing a FORM element should submit it. In either case, how the server-side processes both the search part and the HTTP body is entirely up to the server - discarding both would be conforming to these two specs (but fairly useless).
In order to determine whether you can post a search part to a specific service, you need to study this service's protocol specification. If the service is practically defined by means of a HTML form, then you cannot use a mix - you can't even use POST if the FORM specifies GET (and vice versa). If you post to a web service, you need to look at the web service's WSDL - which will typically mandate POST; with all data in a SOAP message. Etc.
Specific web frameworks may have the notion of "request variables" - whether they will draw these variables both from a search part and a request body, you need to find out in the product documentation.
I deployed a web application with 3 (a mobile network operator) in the UK. It originally used POST parameters, but the 3 gateway stripped them (and X-headers as well!). So beware...
allowable? sure, it's doable, but i'm leaning towards the spec suggesting dual methods isn't necessarily supposed to happen, or be supported. RFC2616 defines HTTP/1.1, and i would argue suggests only one method per request. if you think about your typical HTTP transaction from the client side, you can see the limitation as well:
$ telnet localhost 80
POST /page.html?id=5 HTTP/1.1
host: localhost
as you can see, you can only use one method (POST/GET, etc...), however due to the nature of how various languages operate, they may pick up the query string, and assign it to the GET variable. ultimately though, this is a POST request, and not a GET.
so basically, yes this functionality exists, is it intended? i would say no.