Design Characteristics of REST / Resource Oriented Server Frameworks and Clients

Wed 10 June 2009

Retrieving comment count

This post is the third part of continuing series of articles on REST. The first one was Why REST ? and the next one was REST is the DBMS of the internet with hopefully some more to follow in the coming weeks.

Struts, Django, Ruby on Rails. We've worked with these and many other similar frameworks. Some time back I started thinking of what would a completely new ground up REST / Resource oriented framework would look like (ground up to ensure it had no legacy design to deal with). Would such frameworks be similar to the ones dominantly used today ? What about the ecosystem that surrounds and interacts with them (client libraries) ? And finally what about the implications on the fine grained object model (assuming there is one) and its relationship with the resource model ? This post deals with some of the thoughts.

There are some specifics the post does not address and is agnostic about :

The frameworks mentioned above are not the only ones out there. There are many, and some actually are very REST specific eg. Apache CXF JAX-RS or Restlet. It would certainly be interesting to contrast my thoughts with these, but for reasons of insufficiently detailed knowledge about them, I shall choose to skip it (better to not make any statements than making incorrect ones).

I shall be assuming a HTTP connector with GET, PUT, POST and DELETE as the constant set of operations. These four operations shall be collectively referred to as Resource Operations.

We shall first start with the server side characteristics, and the term ROF shall refer to a Resource Oriented (server side) Framework

A ROF will have a resource oriented interface : Certainly not a profound statement, but it was important to lay that down upfront. So what is a Resource Oriented Interface. Given a particular resource, a Resource Oriented Software will support or consume end points which allow you GET, PUT, POST or DELETE the resource. There is one reason why this particular constraint is relaxed just a little bit. Modern browsers do not support all the four methods easily eg DELETE and make it just slightly hard to use the PUT method. Hence these methods can also be invoked by using a URI segment containing the method name eg. delete.

A ROF will have an abstraction to represent a resource as an end point : Again, that seems to be pretty obvious. But there is a reason why I make it explicitly. In many situations we see controllers acting as end points. To the extent a controller acts as an abstraction for a resource end point which essentially only has the resource operations as public methods, it would fit this requirement. However if I was using an Order as a resource and if I introduced an approve method on the OrderController that would not be consistent with this requirement. That would need to be modelled as an OrderApproval resource which may on successful completion, effect a state change on the Order resource to the status 'approved'.

This is where a potential differences with conventional frameworks arise. If I was to think of it from an EJB like perspective, I would model a OrderController as a Session bean and a Order as an entity bean. In case of lightweight POJO based model, I would have an OrderController as the endpoint exposed by say using Struts and model the Order as a entity POJO and map it to the database using Hibernate. In other non java frameworks, I would have a class to represent an OrderController and another one to represent the order along ActiveRecord pattern. But I would argue this separation is not entirely necessary, since what we want is something that implements a single abstraction mapping onto a Resource which also support the primarily lifecycle methods or resource operations of GET, PUT, POST and DELETE. But there is an issue to be worked through here. These resource operations are actually class level and not object level methods. Thus if we have an abstraction to represent the resource instance, the class level methods cannot be defined in the same class except as class level (static) methods. This is a tricky problem, and I would submit the designer may make one of two choices (a) Implement the resource operations as class level methods on the Resource abstraction (ie. they will get or return the resource references as method parameters and not rely on the 'this' or 'self' qualifier for getting access to the resource variables or (b) Implement the resource operations as methods on a separate one-to-one mapped class on the resource abstraction (eg. an OrderHome in case of an EJB like analogy)

Given consistent expectations of the Resource Operations these will actually be auto-magically implemented : Thats a bit of a turnaround from what I was just describing in the earlier paragraph. What I mean to suggest is that the class level methods I just referred to will be implemented within the framework. What the framework will allow are plugins to provide extended functionality at specific points. Thus a "public static Order Order.put(Order order)" method will be implicitly implemented by the framework. But before a put can be processed it needs to be validated. Thus the framework will allow the developer to plug in / override his own implementation for an Order.validate(Order order). There are multiple ways such plug-ins could be implemented. Depending upon the nature of abstraction, it could be an overridden method as I just described, or it could be a standalone method that is registered into the overall workflow (either through convention or configuration). The latter might be especially useful in case one wants to implement the functionality as stand alone methods or in case of functional programming languages. The plugin points provided could be framework specific. eg, One may want to validate a resource for consistency even at it is being read from the database. For the rest of the post I shall refer to these as plugins. In addition, framework will most certainly provide methods for for downstream handling of impact of PUT, POST or DELETE. This is covered in the next point. In case the framework chooses to not deal with persistence, it may choose to allow capabilities for integration with other persistence frameworks.

A ROF will provide capabilities to a developer to override or register methods to handle downstream impact of PUT, POST and DELETE : Before I get into the details of this, I encourage you to take a look at my earlier post REST is the DBMS of the internet in case you have not already done so. To summarise it quickly, I have drawn the analogy that a REST based system is like a DBMS where client applications can perform direct SQL such as SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE in case of HTTP/REST) on the Tables (Resources in case of REST), and the business logic is implemented as triggers. Thus the framework will need to allow the developer to define such triggers. Such methods will need to support ability to reject the request (in case of downstream validation failures), and update the resource state (to reflect the appropriate resource state after the completion of the downstream processing). It is also feasible to imagine scenarios where such methods are triggered asynchronously. Much of the logic of the traditional controllers which controlled interactions across multiple objects etc. is likely to now be shifted into these methods. I have no particularly good name for such methods. They could be referred to as triggers, event or message handlers, glue methods, extension points etc. For the rest of this post I shall refer to these methods specifically as 'handlers'.

Note that the actual invocations to select, insert, update, delete the resource are NOT to be programmed by the developer. These are automatically handled by the framework. The developer essentially fills in the necessary logic to the plugin methods (eg. Order.validate) or handlers (eg. Order.onCreate)

A ROF will provide a mechanism to describe or map a resource abstraction to to the actual programming constructs : There are a number of ways this could be achieved. XML, YAML, DSL, Annotation - take your pick. Also the actual class could be defined (as in case of a POJO) and the resource characteristics mapped onto it, or the class may manifest itself at runtime based on metaprogramming around the metadata. Sample possibilities here are Hibernate like Resource-to-Object-to-Relation mapping (using either Annotations or XML) or a a completely metaprogrammed ActiveResource. One important aspect that the framework will need to cover is the situations where a Resource is a composite of many or partial underlying business objects. eg. an Order resource instance could theoretically span one Order instance and many OrderItem instances. Thus a one to one relationship between a resource and underlying business objects (or datastructures) is not assumed. What is assumed is that the framework will allow such relationships to be described or introspected.

A ROF will allow resources to be mapped onto URI or URI segments : This is too obvious an requirement to be explained and is mentioned here only for completeness.

A ROF will allow foreign keys across resources which manifest themselves as URIs to be mapped onto the underlying business object references : Resources refer to each other through URIs. The underlying business objects refer to each other through object references. Given the resource descriptions and URI mappings, the framework should allow for a transparent referencing/dereferencing between such URIs and the object references.

A ROF will allow factory methods for locating or allow injection of other resources / business objects : Within the handler functions, developers will need references to the associated resources or business objects. I say resources or business objects, since the developer may choose to interact with these at a coarse grained (resource) or fine grained (business object) level. The framework should allow the necessary support for such activities.

A ROF may provide additional support for typical aspects of lifecycle (eg. validation) : While I mentioned validate as a possible plugin function. However given the omnipresence of validations, the framework may provide additional support for such activities. Thus the framework may choose to automatically implement such capabilities using the resource descriptions.

A ROF may provide capabilities for domain specific extension of resource capabilities : Certain domains have standardised mechanisms of working with resources. As an example most banking systems based on the four eyes principle require approval activities. While this particular aspect is much tougher than it seems, a ROF may choose to allow extension of such capabilities using template like functions or mix ins. As an example in this situation, once an Order resource is defined, an OrderApproval resource will be automatically made available as will the GET and PUT methods on it (POST and DELETE in this particular case may not be relevant), as will the necessary and appropriate handler functions on OrderApproval.

A ROF will provide capabilities for automatically generating the resource representation from the resource and vice-versa : Resources manifest themselves in multiple possible formats eg. XML, JSON etc. An ROF will allow such transformations between the representation and the resource/business object instance automatically.

A ROF will provide capabilities for assembling more complex representations using templates : In many situations, especially when the representations are being composed for manual (browser based) consumption, additional resources may need to be pulled into a view. A ROF will allow for such assembly of resources to be composed into a final view using templates.

A ROF will allow for introduction of appropriate additional URIs in views using templates : Thanks to HATEOAS (I've really avoided it thus far :) ), the framework will need to allow some mechanism of describing what are the additional context specific URIs to be included in the final representation. The template logic should allow the developer to specify such URIs.

A ROF should allow for the resource / media-type descriptions to be shipped in band with the resource representation : Since REST allows media types to be auto discovered and auto described, the framework should allow for the metadata for such media types to be also presented to the client. While I think it is essential that such in band information should be conveyed on demand, the framework may also optionally support upfront interrogation for media types and their details, which will require such information to be shipped out of band as well. I am not aware of any specific standards around such interrogation APIs so the framework could implement a custom API for the same. The actual metadata could be represented using any of the typical appropriate standards such as RDFa, XML Schema snippets etc.

A ROF should optionally allow support for auto generation of bindings for clients : I really really cringe as I write this. I cringe because to me the great attraction of REST is the simplicity and the ease of introducing incremental integration. The client binding generation (especially if it is statically generated) flies in the face of many accepted lightweight design scenarios. However I think there are likely to be some situation where availability of such client side bindings would be helpful. When possible (eg. with dynamically typed, metaprogramming capable languages like Python or Ruby), such bindings should be dynamic. In such cases the client can automatically introspect the server side media types and make available the necessary client side objects on the fly. In cases where statically typed languages such as Java or Scala are used, the client side may choose to expose everything as generic datastructures (e.g trees of name value pairs) or may allow for generation and compilation of client side bindings. I have no specific thoughts around the API support needed on the client side, except that quite obviously this would include support for the resource construction, resource operations etc. and that they would allow the client to interact with the server using the underlying language constructs rather having to work at a raw HTTP level.

In addition to the characteristics described above, I suspect frameworks will have many other optional characteristics such as support for monitoring, auditing / logging, transaction management, object pooling etc. etc. However these are unlikely to be particularly interesting when focusing on the framework aspects especially from a resource oriented perspective, which is indeed the focus of this post.

Update : InfoQ covered this blog post here : Design Characteristics Of Resource Oriented Server Frameworks

comments powered by Disqus