from q.com/articles/rest-introduction
You may or may not be aware that there is debate going on about the
“right” way to implement heterogeneous application-to-application
communication: While the current mainstream clearly focuses on web
services based on SOAP, WSDL and the WS-* specification universe, a
small, but very vocal minority claims there’s a better way: REST, short
for REpresentational State Transfer. In this article, I will try to
provide a pragmatic introduction to REST and RESTful HTTP application
integration without digressing into this debate. I will go into more
detail while explaining those aspects that, in my experience, cause the
most discussion when someone is exposed to this approach for the first
Key REST principles
Most introductions to REST start with the formal definition and
background. I’ll defer this for a while and provide a simplified,
pragmatic definition: REST is a set of principles that define how Web
standards, such as HTTP and URIs, are supposed to be used (which often
differs quite a bit from what many people actually do). The promise is
that if you adhere to REST principles while designing your application,
you will end up with a system that exploits the Web’s architecture to
your benefit. In summary, the five key principles are:
Give every “thing” an ID
Link things together
Use standard methods
Resources with multiple representations
Communicate statelessly
Let’s take a closer look at each of these principles.
Give every “thing” an ID
I’m using the term “thing” here instead of the formally correct
“resource” because this is such a simple principle that it shouldn’t be
hidden behind terminology. If you think about the systems that people
build, there is usually a set of key abstractions that merit being
identified. Everything that should be identifiable should obviously get
an ID — on the Web, there is a unified concept for IDs: The URI. URIs
make up a global namespace, and using URIs to identify your key
resources means they get a unique, global ID.
The main benefit of a consistent naming scheme for things is that
you don’t have to come up with your own scheme — you can rely on one
that has already been defined, works pretty well on global scale and is
understood by practically anybody. If you consider an arbitrary
high-level object within the last application you built (assuming it
wasn’t built in a RESTful way), it is quite likely that there are many
use cases where you would have profited from this. If your application
included a Customer abstraction, for instance, I’m reasonably sure that
users would have liked to be able to send a link to a specific customer
via email to a co-worker, create a bookmark for it in their browser, or
even write it down on a piece of paper. To drive home this point:
Imagine what an awfully horrid business decision it would be if an
online store such
did not identify every one of its
products with a unique ID (a URI).
When confronted with this idea, many people wonder whether this
means they should expose their database entries (or their IDs) directly
— and are often appalled by the mere idea, since years of
object-oriented practice have told us to hide the persistence aspects
as an implementation detail. But this is not a conflict at all:
Usually, the things — the resources — that merit being identified with
a URI are far more abstract than a database entry. For example, an
Order resource might be composed of order items, an address and many
other aspects that you might not want to expose as individually
identifiable resources. Taking the idea of identifying everything that
is worth being identified further leads to the creation of resources
that you usually don’t see in a typical application design: A process
or process step, a sale, a negotiation, a request for a quote — these
are all examples of “things” that merit identification. This, in turn,
can lead to the creation of more persistent entities than in a
non-RESTful design.
Here are some examples of URIs you might come up with:
/customers/1234
/orders/654
/products/4554
/processes/salary-increase-234
As I’ve chosen to create human-readable URIs — a useful concept,
even though it’s not a pre-requisite for a RESTful design — it should
be quite easy to guess their meaning: They obviously identify
individual “items”. But take a look at these:
/orders/2007/11
/products?color=green
At first, these appear to be something different — after all, they
are not identifying a thing, but a collection of things (assuming the
first URI identifies all orders submitted in November 2007, and the
second one the set of green products). But these collections are actually things — resources — themselves, and they definitely merit identification.
Note that the benefits of having a single, globally unified naming
scheme apply both to the usage of the Web in your browser and to
machine-to-machine communication.
To summarize the first principle: Use URIs to identify everything
that merits being identifiable, specifically, all of the “high-level”
resources that your application provides, whether they represent
individual items, collections of items, virtual and physical objects,
or computation results.
Link things together
The next principle we’re going to look at has a formal description
that is a little intimidating: “Hypermedia as the engine of application
state”, sometimes abbreviated as HATEOAS. (Seriously — I’m not making
this up.) At its core is the concept of hypermedia, or in other words: the idea of links.
Links are something we’re all familiar with from HTML, but they are in
no way restricted to human consumption. Consider the following made-up
XML fragment:
&order self='/customers/1234' &
&amount&23&/amount&
&product ref='/products/4554' /&
&customer ref='/customers/1234' /&
If you look at the product and customer links in this document, you
can easily imagine how an application that has retrieved it can
“follow” the links to retrieve more information. Of course, this would
be the case if there were a simple “id” attribute adhering to some
application-specific naming scheme, too — but only within the application’s context.
The beauty of the link approach using URIs is that the links can point
to resources that are provided by a different application, a different
server, or even a different company on another continent — because the
naming scheme is a global standard, all of the resources that make up
the Web can be linked to each other.
There is an even more important aspect to the hypermedia principle —
the “state” part of the application. In short, the fact that the server
(or service provider, if you prefer) provides a set of links to the
client (the service consumer) enables the client to move the
application from one state to the next by following a link. We will
look at the effects of this aspect in
moment, just keep in mind that links are an extremely useful way to
make an application dynamic.
To summarize this principles: Use links to refer to identifiable
things (resources) wherever possible. Hyperlinking is what makes the
Web the Web.
Use standard methods
There was an implicit assumption in the discussion of the first two principles: that the consuming application can actually do
something meaningful with the URIs. If you see a URI written on the
side of a bus, you can enter it into your browser’s address field and
hit return — but how does your browser know what to do with the URI?
It knows what to do with it because every resource supports the same
interface, the same set of methods (or operations, if you prefer). HTTP
calls these verbs, and in addition to the two everyone knows
(GET and POST), the set of standard methods includes PUT, DELETE, HEAD
and OPTIONS. The meaning of these methods is defined in the HTTP
specification, along with some guarantees about their behavior. If you
are an OO developer, you can imagine that every resource in a RESTful
HTTP scenario extends a class like this (in some Java/C#-style
pseudo-syntax and concentrating on the key methods):
class Resource {
Resource(URI u);
Response get();
Response post(Request r);
Response put(Request r);
Response delete();
Because the same interface is used for every resource, you can rely on being able to retrieve a representation
— i.e., some rendering of it — using GET. Because GET’s semantics are
defined in the specification, you can be sure that you have no
obligations when you call it — this is why the method is called “safe”.
GET supports very efficient and sophisticated caching, so in many
cases, you don’t even have to send a request to the server. You can
also be sure that a GET is idempotent — if you issue a GET
request and don’t get a result, you might not know whether your request
never reached its destination or the response got lost on its way back
to you. The idempotence guarantee means you can simply issue the
request again. Idempotence is also guaranteed for PUT (which basically
means “update this resource with this data, or create it at this URI if
it’s not there already”) and for DELETE (which you can simply try again
and again until you get a result — deleting something that’s not there
is not a problem). POST, which usually means “create a new resource”,
can also be used to invoke arbitrary processing and thus is neither
safe nor idempotent.
If you expose your application’s functionality (or service’s functionality, if you prefer) in a RESTful way, this principle and its restrictions apply to you as well. This is hard to accept if you’re used to a different design approach — after all, you’re quite likely convinced that your
application has much more logic than what is expressible with a handful
operations. Let me spend some time trying to convince you that this is
not the case.
Consider the following example of a simple procurement scenario:
You can see that there are two services defined here (without
implying any particular implementation technology). The interface to
these services is specific to the task — it’s an OrderManagement and
CustomerManagement service we are talking about. If a client wants to
consume these services, it needs to be coded against this particular
interface — there is no way to use a client that was built before these
interfaces were specified to meaningfully interact with them. The
interfaces define the services’ application protocol.
In a RESTful HTTP approach, you would have to get by with the generic interface that makes up the HTTP application protocol. You might come up with something like this:
You can see that what have been specific operations of a service
have been mapped to the standard HTTP methods — and to disambiguate, I
have created a whole universe of new resources. “That’s cheating!”, I
hear you cry. No - it’s not. A GET on a URI that identifies a customer
is just as meaningful as a getCustomerDetails operation. Some people
have used a triangle to visualize this:
Imagine the three vertices as knobs that you can turn. You can see
that in the first approach, you have many operations and many kinds of
data and a fixed number of “instances” (essentially, as many as you
have services). In the second, you have a fixed number of operations,
many kinds of data and many objects to invoke those fixed methods upon.
The point of this is to illustrate that you can basically express
anything you like with both approaches.
Why is this important? Essentially, it makes your application part
of the Web — its contribution to what has turned the Web into the most
successful application of the Internet is proportional to the number of
resources it adds to it. In a RESTful approach, an application might
add a few million customer URIs to the W if it’s designed the same
way applications have been designed in CORBA times, its contribution
usually is a single “endpoint” — comparable to a very small door that
provides entry to a universe of resource only for those who have the
The uniform interface also enables every component that understands
the HTTP application protocol to interact with your application.
Examples of components that benefit from this are generic clients such
as curl and wget, proxies, caches, HTTP servers, gateways, even
Google/Yahoo!/MSN, and many more.
To summarize: For clients to be able to interact with your
resources, they should implement the default application protocol
(HTTP) correctly, i.e. make use of the standard methods GET, PUT, POST,
Resources with multiple representations
We’ve ignored a slight complication so far: how does a client know
how to deal with the data it retrieves, e.g. as a result of a GET or
POST request? The approach taken by HTTP is to allow for a separation
of concerns between handling the data and invoking operations. In other
words, a client that knows how to handle a particular data format can
interact with all resources that can provide a representation in this
format. Let’s illustrate this with an example again. Using HTTP content
negotiation, a client can ask for a representation in a particular format:
GET /customers/1234 HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/vnd.mycompany.customer+xml
The result might be some company-specific XML format that represents
customer information. If the client sends a different request, e.g. one
like this:
GET /customers/1234 HTTP/1.1
Accept: text/x-vcard
The result could be the customer address in VCard format. (I have
not shown the responses, which would contain metadata about the type of
data in the HTTP Content-type header.) This illustrates why ideally,
the representations of a resource should be in standard formats — if a
client “knows” both the HTTP application protocol and a set of data
formats, it can interact with any RESTful HTTP application in the world
in a very meaningful way. Unfortunately, we don’t have standard formats
for everything, but you can probably imagine how one could create a
smaller ecosystem within a company or a set of collaborating partners
by relying on standard formats. Of course all of this does not only
apply to the data sent from the server to the client, but also for the
reverse direction — a server that can consume data in specific formats
does not care about the particular type of client, provided it follows
the application protocol.
There is another significant benefit of having
multiple representations of a resource in practice: If you provide both
an HTML and an XML representation of your resources, they are
consumable not only by your application, but also by every standard Web
browser — in other words, information in your application becomes
available to everyone who knows how to use the Web.
There is another way to exploit this: You can turn your
application’s Web UI into its Web API — after all, API design is often
driven by the idea that everything that can be done via the UI should
also be doable via the API. Conflating the two tasks into one is an
amazingly useful way to get a better Web interface for both humans and
other applications.
Summary: Provide multiple representations of resources for different needs.
Communicate statelessly
The last principle I want to address is stateless communication.
First of all, it’s important to stress that although REST includes the
idea of statelessness, this does not mean that an application that
exposes its functionally cannot have state — in fact, this would render
the whole approach pretty useless in most scenarios. REST mandates that
state be either turned into resource state, or kept on the client. In
other words, a server should not have to retain some sort of
communication state for any of the clients it communicates with beyond
a single request. The most obvious reason for this is scalability — the
number of clients interacting would seriously impact the server’s
footprint if it had to keep client state. (Note that this usually
requires some re-design — you can’t simply stick a URI to some session
state and call it RESTful.)
But there are other aspects that might be much more important: The
statelessness constraint isolates the client against changes on the
server as it is not dependent on talking to the same server in two
consecutive requests. A client could receive a document containing
links from the server, and while it does some processing, the server
could be shut down, its hard disk could be ripped out and be replaced,
the software could be updated and restarted — and if the client follows
one of the links it has received from the server, it won’t notice.
REST in theory
I have a confession to make: What I explained is not really REST,
and I might get flamed for simplifying things a little too much. But I
wanted to start things a little differently than usual, so I did not
provide the formal background and history of REST in the beginning. Let
me try to address this, if somewhat briefly.
First of all, I’ve avoided taking great care to separate REST from
HTTP itself and the use of HTTP in a RESTful way. To understand the
relationship between these different aspects, we have to take a look at
the history of REST.
The term REST was defined by
(you might actually want to follow that link — it’s quite readable, for
a dissertation at least). Roy had been one of the primary designer of
many essential Web protocols, including HTTP and URIs, and he
formalized a lot of the ideas behind them in the document. (The
dissertation is considered “the REST bible”, and rightfully so — after
all, the author invented the term, so by definition, anything he wrote
about it must be considered authorative.) In the dissertation, Roy
first defines a methodology to talk about architectural styles
— high-level, abstract patterns that express the core ideas behind an
architectural approach. Each architectural style comes with a set of constraints
that define it. Examples of architectural styles include the “null
style” (which has no constrains at all), pipe and filter,
client/server, distributed objects and — you guessed it — REST.
If all of this sounds quite abstract to you, you are right — REST in
itself is a high-level style that could be implemented using many
different technologies, and instantiated using different values for its
abstract properties. For example, REST includes the concepts of
resources and a uniform interface — i.e. the idea that every resource
should respond to the same methods. But REST doesn’t say which methods
these should be, or how many of them there should be.
One “incarnation” of the REST style is HTTP (and a set of related
set of standards, such as URIs), or slightly more abstractly: the Web’s
architecture itself. To continue the example from above, HTTP
“instantiates” the REST uniform interface with a particular one,
consisting of the HTTP verbs. As Fielding defined the REST style after
the Web — or at least, most of it — was already “done”, one might argue
whether it’s a 100% match. But in any case, the Web, HTTP and URIs are
the only major, certainly the only relevant instance of the REST style
as a whole. And as Roy Fielding is both the author of the REST
dissertation and has been a strong influence on the Web architecture’s
design, this should not come as a surprise.
Finally, I’ve used the term “RESTful HTTP” from time to time, for a
simple reason: Many applications that use HTTP don’t follow the
principles of REST — and with some justification, one can say that
using HTTP without following the REST principles is equal to abusing
HTTP. Of course this sounds a little zealous — and in fact there are
often reasons why one would violate a REST constraint, simply because
every constraint induces some trade-off that might not be acceptable in
a particular situation. But often, REST constraints are violated due to
a simple lack of understanding of their benefits. To provide one
particularly nasty example: the use of HTTP GET to invoke operations
such as deleting an object violates REST’s safety constraint and plain
common sense (the client cannot be held accountable, which is probably
not what the server developer intended). But more on this, and other
notable abuses, in a follow-up article.
In this article, I have attempted to provide a quick introduction
into the concepts behind REST, the architecture of the Web. A RESTful
HTTP approach to exposing functionality is different from RPC,
Distributed Objects, and W it takes some mind shift to
really understand this difference. Being aware about REST principles is
beneficial whether you are building applications that expose a Web UI
only or want to turn your application API into a good Web citizen.
lead editor of InfoQ’s SOA community and co-founder, principal
consultant and lead RESTafarian of Germany/Switzerland-based .
随笔 - 387
评论 - 201
随笔分类(440)
随笔档案(378)
文章档案(6)
新闻档案(1)
//crossdomainxml/
Peanut Butter Utilities - AS3 Libraries that I built/use and other may find useful
This framework approaches to arrange graphical objects without overlapping them or corrupting the size ratios while keeping a minimal distance to each other and trying to distribute them evenly.
a set of AS3 classes and some MXML examples to provide an alternative for Flex Framework
Base UI classes
Couple of RPC classes
Event, call, callback mapping
Embedded resources management
Styles (coming soon)
Skins (coming soon)
as3workshop!!
manage-depth-with-as3
Robotlegs is a pure AS3 micro-architecture (framework) with a light footprint and limited scope.
Blog-Links
ActionScript 3 Tutorials
Preview demos of Flash/Flex/AIR
A magical discussion of software, economics, and other assorted theories.
Robotlegs as3
Flex and AS3
Flash and ActionScript for the masses. With a little Python thrown in.
Covering J2EE Security and WebLogic Topics
Thoughts of a Flash Geek
Flash, Flex, Ruby – Cape Town, SA
Design Pattern
Enterprise Modules Project
IDE 2.0: Bringing Collective Intelligence into Software Development
Intelligence Code Recommenders
The maker of nWire, a cutting edge source code exploration and visualization tool for Java and PHP, reaffirms its' commitment to the Eclipse community, offers free Eclipse downloads.
Scout is a framework to implement modern business applications. It features a simple and solid architecture, support for SOA, support for Corporate Identity and Corporate Design, mature GUI elements and much more. Goal: The goal of Scout is to substantially reduce development time for fully SOA and J2EE compliant business applications.
OSGi Sever Runtime
Siemens Enterprise Use Equinox to Power "Communication as a Service
Favorite Links
Gallery of wonderful webs
clockmaker.jp labs
colortools
design-patterns-cheat-sheet
Web 2.0 Icons
/gimite/web-socket-js
Pro GIT smart-http
Identity Management
Apache Shiro is a powerful and easy-to-use security framework that performs authentication, authorization, cryptography, and session management. With Shiro’s easy-to-understand API, you can quickly and easily secure any application – from the smallest mobile applications to the largest web and enterprise applications.
ESOE has been built utilizing open standards from OASIS such as SAML 2.0 and XACML 2.0 to provide the greatest amount of flexibility for implementors possible. This focus on open standards ensures that ESOE can integrate with solutions from other vendors easily who support these industry wide standards. These vendors include Google, Sun, Oracle and IBM.
The following specifications are supported:
OpenID Authentication 2.0
OpenID Authentication 1.1 (in compatibility mode)
OpenID Attribute Exchange 1.0
OpenID Simple Registration 1.0 and 1.1, draft 1
OpenID Provider Authentication Policy Extension 1.0
OpenID Information Cards 1.0, draft 1
IT resources
Configuring+a+Delegated+Authentication+Directory
Membase is a distributed key-value database management system
Gosu is a programming language for the Java Virtual Machine (JVM).
Version Control
积分与排名
阅读排行榜
评论排行榜