RESTBucks Evolved

restbucksThe book REST in Practice: Hypermedia and Systems Architecture uses an imaginary StarBucks-like company as its running example.

I think this is a great example, since most people are familiar with the domain.

The design is also simple enough to follow, yet complex enough to be interesting.

Problem Domain

RESTbucks is about ordering and paying for coffee (or tea) and food. Here is the state diagram for the client:
restbucks-states

  1. Create the order
  2. Update the order
  3. Cancel the order
  4. Pay for the order
  5. Wait for the order to be prepared
  6. Take the order

Book Design

The hypermedia design in the book for the service is as follows:

  1. The client POSTs an order to the well-known RESTBucks URI. This returns the order URI in the Location header. The client then GETs the order URI
  2. The client POSTs an updated order to the order URI
  3. The client DELETEs the order URI
  4. The client PUTs a payment to the URI found by looking up a link with relation http://relations.restbucks.com/payment
  5. The client GETs the order URI until the state changes
  6. The client DELETEs the URI found by looking up a link with relation http://relations.restbucks.com/receipt

The book uses the specialized media type application/vnd.restbucks.order+xml for all messages exchanged.

Design Problems

Here are some of the problems that I have with the above approach:

  1. I think the well-known URI for the service (what Mike Amundsen calls the billboard URI) should respond to a GET, so that clients can safely explore it.
    This adds an extra message, but it also makes it possible to expand the service with additional functionality. For instance, when menus are added in a later chapter of the book, a second well-known URI is introduced. With a proper home document-like resource in front of the order service, this could have been limited to a new link relation.
  2. I’d rather use PUT for updating an order, since that is an idempotent method. The book states that the representation returned by GET contains links and argues that this implies that (1) PUT messages should also contain those links and (2) that that would be strange since those links are under control of the server.
    I disagree with both statements. A server doesn’t necessarily have to make the formats for GET and PUT exactly the same. Even if it did, some parts, like the links, could be optional. Furthermore, there is no reason the server couldn’t accept and ignore the links.
  3. The DELETE is fine.
    An alternative is to use PUT with a status of canceled, since we already have a status property anyway. That opens up some more possibilities, like re-instating a canceled order, but also introduces issues like garbage collection.
  4. I don’t think PUT is the correct method. Can the service really guarantee under all circumstances that my credit card won’t get charged twice if I repeat the payment?
    More importantly, this design assumes that payments are always for the whole order. That may seem logical at first, but once the book introduces vouchers that logic evaporates. If I have a voucher for a free coffee, then I still have to pay for anything to eat or for a second coffee.
    I’d create a collection of payments that the client should POST to. I’d also use the standard payment link relation defined in RFC 5988.
  5. This is fine.
  6. This makes no sense to me: taking the order is not the same as deleting the receipt. I need the receipt when I’m on a business trip, so I can get reimbursed!
    I’d rather PUT a new order with status taken.

Service Evolution

Suppose you’ve implemented your own service based on the design in the book.

evolutionFurther suppose that after reading the above, you want to change your service.

How can you do that without breaking any clients that may be out there?

After all, isn’t that what proponents tout as one of the advantages of a RESTful approach?

Well, yes and no. The media type defined in the book is at level 3a, and so will allow you to change URIs. However, the use of HTTP methods is defined out-of-band and you can’t easily change that.

Now imagine that the book would have used a full hypermedia type (level 3b) instead. In that case, the HTTP method used would be part of the message. The client would have to discover it, and the server could easily change it without fear of breaking clients.

Of course, this comes at the cost of having to build more logic into the client. That’s why I think it’s a good idea to use an existing full hypermedia type like Mason, Siren, or UBER. Such generic media types are much more likely to come with libraries that will handle this sort of work for the client.

REST 101 For Developers

rest-easy

Local Code Execution

Functions in high-level languages like C are compiled into procedures in assembly. They add a level of indirection that frees us from having to think about memory addresses.

Methods and polymorphism in object-oriented languages like Java add another level of indirection that frees us from having to think about the specific variant of a set of similar functions.

Despite these indirections, methods are basically still procedure calls, telling the computer to switch execution flow from one memory location to another. All of this happens in the same process running on the same computer.

Remote Code Execution

This is fundamentally different from switching execution to another process or another computer. Especially the latter is very different, as the other computer may not even have the same operating system through which programs access memory.

It is therefore no surprise that mechanisms of remote code execution that try to hide this difference as much as possible, like RMI or SOAP, have largely failed. Such technologies employ what is known as Remote Procedure Calls (RPCs).

rpcOne reason we must distinguish between local and remote procedure calls is that RPCs are a lot slower.

For most practical applications, this changes the nature of the calls you make: you’ll want to make less remote calls that are more coarsely grained.

Another reason is more organizational than technical in nature.

When the code you’re calling lives in another process on another computer, chances are that the other process is written and deployed by someone else. For the two pieces of code to cooperate well, some form of coordination is required. That’s the price we pay for coupling.

Coordinating Change With Interfaces

We can also see this problem in a single process, for instance when code is deployed in different jar files. If you upgrade a third party jar file that your code depends on, you may need to change your code to keep everything working.

Such coordination is annoying. It would be much nicer if we could simply deploy the latest security patch of that jar without having to worry about breaking our code. Fortunately, we can if we’re careful.

interfaceInterfaces in languages like Java separate the public and private parts of code.

The public part is what clients depend on, so you must evolve interfaces in careful ways to avoid breaking clients.

The private part, in contrast, can be changed at will.

From Interfaces to Services

In OSGi, interfaces are the basis for what are called micro-services. By publishing services in a registry, we can remove the need for clients to know what object implements a given interface. In other words, clients can discover the identity of the object that provides the service. The service registry becomes our entry point for accessing functionality.

There is a reason these interfaces are referred to as micro-services: they are miniature versions of the services that make up a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA).

A straightforward extrapolation of micro-services to “SOA services” leads to RPC-style implementations, for instance with SOAP. However, we’ve established earlier that RPCs are not the best way to invoke remote code.

Enter REST.

RESTful Services

rest-easyRepresentational State Transfer (REST) is an architectural style that brings the advantages of the Web to the world of programs.

There is no denying the scalability of the Web, so this is an interesting angle.

Instead of explaining REST as it’s usually done by exploring its architectural constraints, let’s compare it to micro-services.

A well-designed RESTful service has a single entry point, like the micro-services registry. This entry point may take the form of a home resource.

We access the home resource like any other resource: through a representation. A representation is a series of bytes that we need to interpret. The rules for this interpretation are given by the media type.

Most RESTful services these days serve representations based on JSON or XML. The media type of a resource compares to the interface of an object.

Some interfaces contain methods that give us access to other interfaces. Similarly, a representation of a resource may contain hyperlinks to other resources.

Code-Based vs Data-Based Services

soapThe difference between REST and SOAP is now becoming apparent.

In SOAP, like in micro-services, the interface is made up of methods. In other words, it’s code based.

In REST, on the other hand, the interface is made up of code and data. We’ve already seen the data: the representation described by the media type. The code is the uniform interface, which means that it’s the same (uniform) for all resources.

In practice, the uniform interface consists of the HTTP methods GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE.

Since the uniform interface is fixed for all resources, the real juice in any RESTful service is not in the code, but in the data: the media type.

Just as there are rules for evolving a Java interface, there are rules for evolving a media type, for example for XML-based media types. (From this it follows that you can’t use XML Schema validation for XML-based media types.)

Uniform Resource Identifiers

So far I haven’t mentioned Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs). The documentation of many so-called RESTful services may give you the impression that they are important.

identityHowever, since URIs identify resources, their equivalent in micro-services are the identities of the objects implementing the interfaces.

Hopefully this shows that clients shouldn’t care about URIs. Only the URI of the home resource is important.

The representation of the home resource contains links to other resources. The meaning of those links is indicated by link relations.

Through its understanding of link relations, a client can decide which links it wants to follow and discover their URIs from the representation.

Versions of Services

evolutionAs much as possible, we should follow the rules for evolving media types and not introduce any breaking changes.

However, sometimes that might be unavoidable. We should then create a new version of the service.

Since URIs are not part of the public interface of a RESTful API, they are not the right vehicle for relaying version information. The correct way to indicate major (i.e. non-compatible) versions of an API can be derived by comparison with micro-services.

Whenever a service introduces a breaking change, it should change its interface. In a RESTful API, this means changing the media type. The client can then use content negotiation to request a media type it understands.

What Do You Think?

what-do-you-thinkLiterature explaining how to design and document code-based interfaces is readily available.

This is not the case for data-based interfaces like media types.

With RESTful services becoming ever more popular, that is a gap that needs filling. I’ll get back to this topic in the future.

How do you design your services? How do you document them? Please share your ideas in the comments.

Supporting Multiple XACML Representations

We’re in the process of registering an XML media type for the eXtensible Access Control Markup Language (XACML). Simultaneously, the XACML Technical Committee is working on a JSON format.

Both media types are useful in the context of another committee effort, the REST profile. This post explains what benefit these profiles will bring once approved, and how to support them in clients and servers.

Media Types Support Content Negotiation

With the REST profile, any application can communicate with a Policy Decision Point (PDP) in a RESTful manner. The media types make it possible to communicate with such a PDP in a manner that is most convenient for the client, using a process called content negotiation.

For instance, a web application that is mainly implemented in JavaScript may prefer to use JSON for communication with the PDP, to avoid having to bring in infrastructure to deal with XML.

Content negotiation is not just a convenience feature, however. It also facilitates evolution.

A server with many clients that understand 2.0 may start also serving 3.0, for instance. The older clients stay functional using 2.0, whereas newer clients can communicate in 3.0 syntax with the same server.

This avoids having to upgrade all the clients at the same time as the server.

So how does a server that supports multiple versions and/or formats know which one to serve to a particular client? The answer is the Accept HTTP header. For instance, a client can send Accept: application/xacml+xml; version=2.0 to get an XACML 2.0 XML format, or Accept: application/xacml+json; version=3.0 to get an XACML 3.0 JSON answer.

The value for the Accept header is a list of media types that are acceptable to the client, in decreasing order of precedence. For instance, a new client could prefer 3.0, but still work with older servers that only support 2.0 by sending Accept: application/xacml+xml; version=3.0, application/xacml+xml; version=2.0.

Supporting Multiple Versions and Formats

So there is value for both servers and clients to support multiple versions and/or formats. Now how does one go about implementing this? The short answer is: using indirection.

The longer answer is to make an abstraction for the version/format combination. We’ll dub this abstraction a representation.

For instance, an XACML request is really not much more than a collection of categorized attributes, while a response is basically a collection of results.

Instead of working with, say, the XACML 3.0 XML form of a request, the client or server code should work with the abstract representation. For each version/format combination, you then add a parser and a builder.

The parser reads the concrete syntax and creates the abstract representation from it. Conversely, the builder takes the abstract representation and converts it to the desired concrete syntax.

In many cases, you can re-use parts of the parsers and builders between representations. For instance, all the XML formats of XACML have in common that they require XML parsing/serialization.

In a design like this, no code ever needs to be modified when a new version of the specification or a new serialization format comes out. All you have to do is add a parser and a builder, and all the other code can stay the way it is.

The only exception is when a new version introduces new capabilities and your code wants to use those. In that case, you probably must also change the abstract representation to accommodate the new functionality.