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.

How To Implement Input Validation For REST resources

rest-validationThe SaaS platform I’m working on has a RESTful interface that accepts XML payloads.

Implementing REST Resources

For a Java shop like us, it makes sense to use JAX-B to generate JavaBean classes from an XML Schema.

Working with XML (and JSON) payloads using JAX-B is very easy in a JAX-RS environment like Jersey:

@Path("orders")
public class OrdersResource {
  @POST
  @Consumes({ "application/xml", "application/json" })
  public void place(Order order) {
    // Jersey marshalls the XML payload into the Order 
    // JavaBean, allowing us to write type-safe code 
    // using Order's getters and setters.
    int quantity = order.getQuantity();
    // ...
  }
}

(Note that you shouldn’t use these generic media types, but that’s a discussion for another day.)

The remainder of this post assumes JAX-B, but its main point is valid for other technologies as well. Whatever you do, please don’t use XMLDecoder, since that is open to a host of vulnerabilities.

Securing REST Resources

Let’s suppose the order’s quantity is used for billing, and we want to prevent people from stealing our money by entering a negative amount.

We can do that with input validation, one of the most important tools in the AppSec toolkit. Let’s look at some ways to implement it.

Input Validation With XML Schema

xml-schemaWe could rely on XML Schema for validation, but XML Schema can only validate so much.

Validating individual properties will probably work fine, but things get hairy when we want to validate relations between properties. For maximum flexibility, we’d like to use Java to express constraints.

More importantly, schema validation is generally not a good idea in a REST service.

A major goal of REST is to decouple client and server so that they can evolve separately.

If we validate against a schema, then a new client that sends a new property would break against an old server that doesn’t understand the new property. It’s usually better to silently ignore properties you don’t understand.

JAX-B does this right, and also the other way around: properties that are not sent by an old client end up as null. Consequently, the new server must be careful to handle null values properly.

Input Validation With Bean Validation

bean-validationIf we can’t use schema validation, then what about using JSR 303 Bean Validation?

Jersey supports Bean Validation by adding the jersey-bean-validation jar to your classpath.

There is an unofficial Maven plugin to add Bean Validation annotations to the JAX-B generated classes, but I’d rather use something better supported and that works with Gradle.

So let’s turn things around. We’ll handcraft our JavaBean and generate the XML Schema from the bean for documentation:

@XmlRootElement(name = "order")
public class Order {
  @XmlElement
  @Min(1)
  public int quantity;
}
@Path("orders")
public class OrdersResource {
  @POST
  @Consumes({ "application/xml", "application/json" })
  public void place(@Valid Order order) {
    // Jersey recognizes the @Valid annotation and
    // returns 400 when the JavaBean is not valid
  }
}

Any attempt to POST an order with a non-positive quantity will now give a 400 Bad Request status.

Now suppose we want to allow clients to change their pending orders. We’d use PATCH or PUT to update individual order properties, like quantity:

@Path("orders")
public class OrdersResource {
  @Path("{id}")
  @PUT
  @Consumes("application/x-www-form-urlencoded")
  public Order update(@PathParam("id") String id, 
      @Min(1) @FormParam("quantity") int quantity) {
    // ...
  }
}

We need to add the @Min annotation here too, which is duplication. To make this DRY, we can turn quantity into a class that is responsible for validation:

@Path("orders")
public class OrdersResource {
  @Path("{id}")
  @PUT
  @Consumes("application/x-www-form-urlencoded")
  public Order update(@PathParam("id") String id, 
      @FormParam("quantity")
      Quantity quantity) {
    // ...
  }
}
@XmlRootElement(name = "order")
public class Order {
  @XmlElement
  public Quantity quantity;
}
public class Quantity {
  private int value;

  public Quantity() { }

  public Quantity(String value) {
    try {
      setValue(Integer.parseInt(value));
    } catch (ValidationException e) {
      throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
    }
  }

  public int getValue() {
    return value;
  }

  @XmlValue
  public void setValue(int value) 
      throws ValidationException {
    if (value < 1) {
      throw new ValidationException(
          "Quantity value must be positive, but is: " 
          + value);
    }
    this.value = value;
  }
}

We need a public no-arg constructor for JAX-B to be able to unmarshall the payload into a JavaBean and another constructor that takes a String for the @FormParam to work.

setValue() throws javax.xml.bind.ValidationException so that JAX-B will stop unmarshalling. However, Jersey returns a 500 Internal Server Error when it sees an exception.

We can fix that by mapping validation exceptions onto 400 status codes using an exception mapper. While we’re at it, let’s do the same for IllegalArgumentException:

@Provider
public class DefaultExceptionMapper 
    implements ExceptionMapper<Throwable> {

  @Override
  public Response toResponse(Throwable exception) {
    Throwable badRequestException 
        = getBadRequestException(exception);
    if (badRequestException != null) {
      return Response.status(Status.BAD_REQUEST)
          .entity(badRequestException.getMessage())
          .build();
    }
    if (exception instanceof WebApplicationException) {
      return ((WebApplicationException)exception)
          .getResponse();
    }
    return Response.serverError()
        .entity(exception.getMessage())
        .build();
  }

  private Throwable getBadRequestException(
      Throwable exception) {
    if (exception instanceof ValidationException) {
      return exception;
    }
    Throwable cause = exception.getCause();
    if (cause != null && cause != exception) {
      Throwable result = getBadRequestException(cause);
      if (result != null) {
        return result;
      }
    }
    if (exception instanceof IllegalArgumentException) {
      return exception;
    }
    if (exception instanceof BadRequestException) {
      return exception;
    }
    return null;
  }

}

Input Validation By Domain Objects

dddEven though the approach outlined above will work quite well for many applications, it is fundamentally flawed.

At first sight, proponents of Domain-Driven Design (DDD) might like the idea of creating the Quantity class.

But the Order and Quantity classes do not model domain concepts; they model REST representations. This distinction may be subtle, but it is important.

DDD deals with domain concepts, while REST deals with representations of those concepts. Domain concepts are discovered, but representations are designed and are subject to all kinds of trade-offs.

For instance, a collection REST resource may use paging to prevent sending too much data over the wire. Another REST resource may combine several domain concepts to make the client-server protocol less chatty.

A REST resource may even have no corresponding domain concept at all. For example, a POST may return 202 Accepted and point to a REST resource that represents the progress of an asynchronous transaction.

ubiquitous-languageDomain objects need to capture the ubiquitous language as closely as possible, and must be free from trade-offs to make the functionality work.

When designing REST resources, on the other hand, one needs to make trade-offs to meet non-functional requirements like performance, scalability, and evolvability.

That’s why I don’t think an approach like RESTful Objects will work. (For similar reasons, I don’t believe in Naked Objects for the UI.)

Adding validation to the JavaBeans that are our resource representations means that those beans now have two reasons to change, which is a clear violation of the Single Responsibility Principle.

We get a much cleaner architecture when we use JAX-B JavaBeans only for our REST representations and create separate domain objects that handle validation.

Putting validation in domain objects is what Dan Bergh Johnsson refers to as Domain-Driven Security.

cave-artIn this approach, primitive types are replaced with value objects. (Some people even argue against using any Strings at all.)

At first it may seem overkill to create a whole new class to hold a single integer, but I urge you to give it a try. You may find that getting rid of primitive obsession provides value even beyond validation.

What do you think?

How do you handle input validation in your RESTful services? What do you think of Domain-Driven Security? Please leave a comment.