API Anti-Patterns: How to Avoid Common REST Mistakes. Web APIs typically use REST style for communication while moving away from more traditional SOAP web services.
311. Status: Maintenance JCP version in use: 2.7 Java Specification Participation Agreement version in use: 2.0 Description: This JSR will develop an API for providing support for RESTful(Representational State Transfer) Web Services in the Java Platform.
Please direct comments on this JSR to the Spec Lead(s) Updates to the Java Specification Request (JSR) The following information has been updated from the original JSR: Fielding Dissertation: CHAPTER 5: Representational State Transfer (REST) [Top] [Prev] [Next] This chapter introduces and elaborates the Representational State Transfer (REST) architectural style for distributed hypermedia systems, describing the software engineering principles guiding REST and the interaction constraints chosen to retain those principles, while contrasting them to the constraints of other architectural styles.
REST is a hybrid style derived from several of the network-based architectural styles described in Chapter 3 and combined with additional constraints that define a uniform connector interface. The software architecture framework of Chapter 1 is used to define the architectural elements of REST and examine sample process, connector, and data views of prototypical architectures. 5.1 Deriving REST The design rationale behind the Web architecture can be described by an architectural style consisting of the set of constraints applied to elements within the architecture. 5.1.1 Starting with the Null Style 5.1.2 Client-Server 5.1.3 Stateless.
RESTful Web services: The basics. The basics REST defines a set of architectural principles by which you can design Web services that focus on a system's resources, including how resource states are addressed and transferred over HTTP by a wide range of clients written in different languages.
If measured by the number of Web services that use it, REST has emerged in the last few years alone as a predominant Web service design model. REST APIs must be hypertext-driven » Untangled. I am getting frustrated by the number of people calling any HTTP-based interface a REST API.
Today’s example is the SocialSite REST API. That is RPC. It screams RPC. There is so much coupling on display that it should be given an X rating. What needs to be done to make the REST architectural style clear on the notion that hypertext is a constraint? API designers, please note the following rules before calling your creation a REST API: A REST API should not be dependent on any single communication protocol, though its successful mapping to a given protocol may be dependent on the availability of metadata, choice of methods, etc. There are probably other rules that I am forgetting, but the above are the rules related to the hypertext constraint that are most often violated within so-called REST APIs. Protocol Extensibility and Versioning - Dave Orchard's Blog. I've argued for a while now that extensibility and versioning are important topics, and it's incredibly important for data formats to plan for evolvability .
I've already argued that you must have substitution mechanisms in place for V1 , otherwise it's impossible to evolve formats. I've refined my argument that compatibility should be thought of at the the message level, and how to think about synch/asynch compatibility as combinations of compatibility of the messages that make up the message exchange pattern. But what about protocols? Can we cast the same logic that applies to data formats to protocols? I think we can apply some of the rules for format extensibility to protocols but not as many and the effect isn't as useful as we'd like. I've regularly used the example of a Name containing a first name, then a second version that contains a last name, and then a third version that contains a middle name, when discussion data formats. Restify-versions(7) - REST API Verisioning.
Ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-16 - HTTP/1.1, part 3: Message Payload and Content Negotiation. RFC 5988 - Web Linking. [Docs] [txt|pdf] [draft-nottingham-...]
[Diff1] [Diff2] [Errata] PROPOSED STANDARD Errata Exist Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) M. Nottingham Request for Comments: 5988 October 2010 Updates: 4287 Category: Standards Track ISSN: 2070-1721 Abstract This document specifies relation types for Web links, and defines a registry for them. It also defines the use of such links in HTTP headers with the Link header field. Status of This Memo This is an Internet Standards Track document. RFC 5988 Web Linking October 2010 This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF Contributions published or made publicly available before November 10, 2008. RFC 5988 Web Linking October 2010 1. A means of indicating the relationships between resources on the Web, as well as indicating the type of those relationships, has been available for some time in HTML [W3C.REC-html401-19991224], and more recently in Atom [RFC4287]. 2.
RFC 5988 Web Linking October 2010 3. 4. S blog: Web API Versioning Smackdown. Tuesday, 25 October 2011 A lot of bits have been used over on the OpenStack list recently about versioning the HTTP APIs they provide.
This over-long and rambling post summarises my current thoughts on the topic, both as background for that discussion, as well as for review in the wider community. The Warm-up: Software vs.