Posted by Charlie
Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:58:00 GMT
Peter and Tim have been blogging about
one of the least undestood parts of REST - how state is handled. Tim puts it nicely:
The essence of REST is to make the states of the protocol explicit and addressible by URIs.
Unfortunately, the official REST terminology obscures this fact by using the indecipherable phrase "Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State."
Whatever it is called, having states addressable by URIs is one of the best parts of the Web. When you do a search on Google, the state of your interaction with Google is returned in the web page of results you get back. That page contains many other links, each of which moves you to a new state. Thus its easy to jump from state-to-state, directly leading to the magic of the Web.
The same thing is true for automated systems as Peter explains. However, I disagree with part of what Peter writes:
With a truly REST based architecture you are free to change just about anything about the disposition and naming of resources in the system, except for a few well known start point URIs. You can change the URI shapes (for example, if you decide that you really hate the currently scheme). You can relocate resources to different servers (for example, if you need to partition you data). Best of all, you can do those things without asking any ones permission, because clients will not even notice the difference.
If I understand him correctly, Peter is arguing that as long as you provide and unchaning "start" link then you are free to change the embedded links in the result pages. I understand what Peter is getting at, as long as the top URI
doesn't change, then clients can pick out the next set of URIs and proceed on their way.
However, I still think this is a bad idea. As Tim Berners-Lee
famously wrote, Cool URIs don't change. A URI is a contract between you and the world - people expect to be able to bookmark it, write it down a napkin, tatoo it on their bodies, and come back many months later and have the URI work.
In a scheme like Peter's, that breaks.
Now,
for the work Peter is doing that might be ok - perhaps this system is only for internal consumption. And of course a world of never-changing URIs is nothing but an ideal. In the real world companies go out of business, processes are time-limited (like reserving an airline ticket), etc.
But I still think you should try your best to keep your URIs. If they have to change, then at least redirect the old ones to the new ones, or put a page up saying whatever you were doing is no longer valid.
Posted in REST, Web | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Thu, 27 Jul 2006 20:51:00 GMT
One of the great ironies of the Web is that a huge number of technical people
refuse to believe what is right in front of their eyes. The Web is the world's
most diverse and powerful information system – one that has massively scaled
from a single user at its inception to hundreds of millions today and billions
tomorrow. REST is deceptively simple - its based on three fundamental
design decisions:
- Agreement on a global addressing scheme, URIs, to identify resources.
- Agreement on a limited, generic application interface to manipulate resources.
HTTP provides this generic interface via its “verbs," which include GET, POST,
PUT, DELETE, etc.
- Agreement on common formats, particularly HTML, to represent resources.
Over time additional formats have been added, including JPEG, GIF, PNG, SVG,
etc.
The Siren Call
Yet these lessons have been ignored time and time again. People just can't get
past the siren call of building distributed systems using distributed objects.
Let's count the failures:
- DCOM
- CORBA
- XML RPC
- SOAP
- Web Services
- Java RMI
- JNI
And hundreds of home grown solutions that will never make it outside the Enterprise
walls. Like I wrote last spring, every developer I've ever met who has written
a distributed computing system always write their own RPC mechanism. I know,
I've done it.
REST proponents have been struggling to get their message across for years.
A the height of the Web Services myopia, REST was portrayed as an
overly simplistic solution that most certainly was not adequate for building
Enterprise applications.
Five years later the tide has turned - the evangelization
of REST believers is starting to pay off. And they are about to be joined by
a new champion - the Rails community.
A New Champion
It looks to me that the Rails community is about to become the first
main-stream web
development community to fully embrace REST.
Over the last year, the Rails community has been learning Web architecture
best practices at light speed. Watching this has been quite refreshing -
there is surprisingly little "not
invented here syndrome." Some of the fundamental changes have included:
- RPC style controllers to REST style controllers
- Closely related, the move to CRUD interfaces
- Changing deployment from Apache/cgi to Lighttpd/fastcgi to http load balancing
with Apache/Mongrel
- Some support for content negotiation to allow the reuse of controllers for
creating multiple types of representations
As discussed above, its no surprise that Rails started down
the wrong path on these architectural issues. What is a surprise is how quickly
the Rails community has discovered its mistakes and starting fixing them. The ability to rapidly
adopt is partially due to the community's youth, which frees it from the shackles
of a backwards compatibility required by an installed base. But its also
a characteristic of the community.
At the same time, Rails has been quickly grabbing mind share and market share.
Adoption hasn't been driven by technical superiority - if David Heinemeier Hansson
used Python I think we'd be talking about Python on Rails today. Instead, adoption
has been driven by one part marketing, one part a unified community (Rails
is the way to develop Web applications if you use Ruby)
and one part luck. Web Services have almost run their course, J2EE is creaking
under its own weight and .NET has not taken over the world. Now that the Web
is hip again, there is a vacuum that is ripe to be filled by a
new platform. PHP has clearly filled most of this void, but Rails has grabbed
itself a niche that is growing quickly.
The combination of the Rails marketing juggernaut, its growing market share
and the community's move toward REST all point to a new champion for the REST
architectural style. It will be interesting to see if this final nudge pushes
the REST style architecture over the tipping point so its finally appreciated
by the majority of the technical community as opposed to a few enlightened souls.
Posted in Rails, REST | 4 comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:18:00 GMT
Tom Fakes was kind enough to point out that the Rails Rest controller and content negotiation plugins I posted a couple of weeks ago can no longer be downloaded. They unfortunately were deleted when my server crashed last week.
So I've uploaded new versions of the plugins that work with Rails 1.1.1.
If you're interesetd in the Rest controller, I'd recommend looking at this one on RubyForge. It was written by Dan Kubb and then modified based on feedback from Peter and myself. This post to the microformats rest mailing list provides a bit of the technical background.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:18:00 GMT
Tom Fakes was kind enough to point out that the Rails Rest controller and content negotiation plugins I posted a couple of weeks ago can no longer be downloaded. They unfortunately were deleted when my server crashed last week.
So I've uploaded new versions of the plugins that work with Rails 1.1.1.
If you're interesetd in the Rest controller, I'd recommend looking at this one on RubyForge. It was written by Dan Kubb and then modified based on feedback from Peter and myself. This post to the microformats rest mailing list provides a bit of the technical background.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:47:00 GMT
Rails support for HTML and XHTML is less than exemplary. For some reason,
the 1.1.1 release considers the application/xhtml+xml mime type to be a synonym
for text/html. Umm....why?
And it gets stranger still. If you've ever looked at the HTML that Rails
generates you'll see markup that looks like this:
<head>
<link ... />
</head>
<input type="text" value="foo" name="bar" /><br />
Notice the extra "/>" characters? This usage comes from
none other than the W3C which recommends it
if you want older browsers (at this point only
Internet Explorer) to be able to render your XHTML as if it was HTML. Whether
this is a good idea or not is long-standing
religious debate that's
not worth rehashing.
What is worth asking though is why is Rails doing this? Right now it provides
the worst of all worlds. First, it serves quasi XHTML to browsers as HTML.
This is wrong for Firefox, Safari and Opera which all understand XHTML. And
it serves XHTML to Internet Explorer which doesn't understand it. In addition,
this quasi XHTML masquerading as HTML doesn't validate against the HTML 4.01
strict standard or the XHTML standard.
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to generate HTML 4.01 and
be done with it? The alternative solution is to implement content
negotiation so that XHTML is served to modern browsers and HTLM to Internet
Explorer. However, before you can even take the first step in this direction
you have to teach Rails that XHTML is in fact not HTML. Here is the code:
module ActionController
module MimeResponds
class Responder
DEFAULT_BLOCKS = {
:xhtml => 'Proc.new { render }'
}
for mime_type in %w( xhtml )
eval <<-EOT
def
custom(Mime::
end
EOT
end
end
end
end
module Mime
HTML = Type.new "text/html", :html
XHTML = Type.new "application/xhtml+xml", :xhtml
LOOKUP["application/xhtml+xml"] = XHTML
end
Once you've done that, you need to change the ActionView::TagHelper::so
that it doesn't add in the "/>" characters. However, at this point you run
into a problem. To figure out whether to close the tag or not requires knowing
the response content type, which is on the response object. Unfortunately,
the tag method is mixed into ActionView::Base as well as ActionView::Helpers::InstanceTag
(and maybe others classes also). The problem is that getting the the response
object is different in each case. It would be nice if there was a global
place to get it from. More about this in a future post.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST, Ruby, Ruby | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:47:00 GMT
Rails support for HTML and XHTML is less than exemplary. For some reason,
the 1.1.1 release considers the application/xhtml+xml mime type to be a synonym
for text/html. Umm....why?
And it gets stranger still. If you've ever looked at the HTML that Rails
generates you'll see markup that looks like this:
<head>
<link ... />
</head>
<input type="text" value="foo" name="bar" /><br />
Notice the extra "/>" characters? This usage comes from
none other than the W3C which recommends it
if you want older browsers (at this point only
Internet Explorer) to be able to render your XHTML as if it was HTML. Whether
this is a good idea or not is long-standing
religious debate that's
not worth rehashing.
What is worth asking though is why is Rails doing this? Right now it provides
the worst of all worlds. First, it serves quasi XHTML to browsers as HTML.
This is wrong for Firefox, Safari and Opera which all understand XHTML. And
it serves XHTML to Internet Explorer which doesn't understand it. In addition,
this quasi XHTML masquerading as HTML doesn't validate against the HTML 4.01
strict standard or the XHTML standard.
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier to generate HTML 4.01 and
be done with it? The alternative solution is to implement content
negotiation so that XHTML is served to modern browsers and HTLM to Internet
Explorer. However, before you can even take the first step in this direction
you have to teach Rails that XHTML is in fact not HTML. Here is the code:
module ActionController
module MimeResponds
class Responder
DEFAULT_BLOCKS = {
:xhtml => 'Proc.new { render }'
}
for mime_type in %w( xhtml )
eval <<-EOT
def
custom(Mime::
end
EOT
end
end
end
end
module Mime
HTML = Type.new "text/html", :html
XHTML = Type.new "application/xhtml+xml", :xhtml
LOOKUP["application/xhtml+xml"] = XHTML
end
Once you've done that, you need to change the ActionView::TagHelper::so
that it doesn't add in the "/>" characters. However, at this point you run
into a problem. To figure out whether to close the tag or not requires knowing
the response content type, which is on the response object. Unfortunately,
the tag method is mixed into ActionView::Base as well as ActionView::Helpers::InstanceTag
(and maybe others classes also). The problem is that getting the the response
object is different in each case. It would be nice if there was a global
place to get it from. More about this in a future post.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST, Ruby, Ruby | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Mon, 03 Apr 2006 05:51:00 GMT
Anyone interested in making Rails a bit more restful should check out the current thread on the Microformats Rest mailing archive.
A good place to start is message. You can also find more information on Peter’s blog.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Mon, 03 Apr 2006 05:51:00 GMT
Anyone interested in making Rails a bit more restful should check out the current thread on the Microformats Rest mailing archive.
A good place to start is message. You can also find more information on Peter’s blog.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:34:00 GMT
Let's get back to REST
and Rails. One of the things Rails doesn't support is HTTP
Content Negotiation. Why would you want this? Because different clients understand
different content types. For example, you can serve XHTML to Firefox but
only HTML to Internet Explorer. Or perhaps you are using AJAX, and want
to send JavaScript back to the browser. Or maybe another computer system
is talking to yours and it would like to have machine parseable XML thank
you.
To accomplish this in Rails 1.0 means manually setting the content type.
One place to do this is in a controller. But that doesn't seem right. Controllers
help guide a client request from its inception to its fulfillment. A controller
should have no knowledge about how the results are rendered. That's the
realm of ActiveView. Now you are talking! But wait...by the time a view
is invoked by Rails the content type has already been decided (that's not
quite true, but you sure don't want to be in an RHTML template generating
YAML).
So let's take a step back. We see that Rails has already started a custom
- HTML files are in .rhtml templates, XML files in .rxml, JavaScript in
.rjs. So let's stick with that. Thus, our goal is to implement code that
picks the appropriate template based on a client's stated desires as indicated
by the HTTP Accept header.
How do we such a thing? Well, first go read Joe Gregorios' excellent introduction to
the subject and implementation in Python. Then download this Rails plugin
that I wrote a few month ago that implements support for Mime Media
Types in Ruby and integrates them into Rails.
The key bit of code is the negotiate_content method. It iterates, in order
of importance as defined by the client, the different Mime Types supported
by the client. For each Mime Type, it sees if there is a corresponding
template with the right extension. Once it finds one, the template is loaded
and the request is fulfilled:
module ActionView
class Base
def pick_template_extension(template_path)
if match = delegate_template_exists?(template_path)
match.first
else
negotiate_content(template_path)
end
end
def negotiate_content(template_path)
result = 'rhtml'
if !controller.respond_to?(:request)
return result
end
negotiator = ContentNegotiator.new
(controller.request.env['HTTP_ACCEPT'])
negotiator.media_types.each do |media_type|
extension = media_type.extension
if media_type.extension and
template_exists?(template_path, extension)
result = extension
break
end
end
result
end
end
end
One thing that is not immediately obvious is that this code will run every
time a template or partial is run. We can use this our advantage.
For example, let's say you want to serve HTML to Internet Explorer and
XHTML to Firefox.
First, in your layout file do this:
<%= render(:partial => 'layouts/doctype') %>
Next, create one partial for Internet Explorer, called _doctype.rhtml:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<% controller.response.headers["Content-Type"] = MediaType::HTML %>
And now one for Firefox called _doctype.rxhtml (make sure to get the extension right!):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<% controller.response.headers['Content-Type'] = MediaType::XHTML %>
Notice that we are neatly able to reuse 99% of our templates for both browsers,
yet at the same time include the <?xml
...?> header
for Firefox but not Internet Explorer.
Last, its good to see that the Rails team has recently discovered the
HTTP Accept header and is adding support in Rails 1.1. I haven't had a chance to
look at their implementation yet since I'm not running
Edge Rails. So take the following comment with a grain of salt. Its certainly
a good thing for Rails to become more aware of MimeTypes, but as mentioned above,
I don't think controllers are the right place to do this.
There is one caveat though. Mime
Types are a blunt instrument (xml/text doesn't tell you much about a document)
and therefore do not provide sufficient information in all cases. The most obvious
example is trying to serve the same content type either via a standard browser
request or an Ajax request. In the former case you generally want to render
a layout and in the later case you do not. Of course, if you are able to make Ajax
requests use a different content type (i.e., JavaScript) then there aren't
any issues. Alternatively, you can always implement two different external apis
to take care of this case.
Once I get my hands on Rails 1.1 I'll make sure to update this plugin if it is
still useful.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST, Ruby, Ruby | 1 comment | no trackbacks
Posted by Charlie
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 06:34:00 GMT
Let's get back to REST
and Rails. One of the things Rails doesn't support is HTTP
Content Negotiation. Why would you want this? Because different clients understand
different content types. For example, you can serve XHTML to Firefox but
only HTML to Internet Explorer. Or perhaps you are using AJAX, and want
to send JavaScript back to the browser. Or maybe another computer system
is talking to yours and it would like to have machine parseable XML thank
you.
To accomplish this in Rails 1.0 means manually setting the content type.
One place to do this is in a controller. But that doesn't seem right. Controllers
help guide a client request from its inception to its fulfillment. A controller
should have no knowledge about how the results are rendered. That's the
realm of ActiveView. Now you are talking! But wait...by the time a view
is invoked by Rails the content type has already been decided (that's not
quite true, but you sure don't want to be in an RHTML template generating
YAML).
So let's take a step back. We see that Rails has already started a custom
- HTML files are in .rhtml templates, XML files in .rxml, JavaScript in
.rjs. So let's stick with that. Thus, our goal is to implement code that
picks the appropriate template based on a client's stated desires as indicated
by the HTTP Accept header.
How do we such a thing? Well, first go read Joe Gregorios' excellent introduction to
the subject and implementation in Python. Then download this Rails plugin
that I wrote a few month ago that implements support for Mime Media
Types in Ruby and integrates them into Rails.
The key bit of code is the negotiate_content method. It iterates, in order
of importance as defined by the client, the different Mime Types supported
by the client. For each Mime Type, it sees if there is a corresponding
template with the right extension. Once it finds one, the template is loaded
and the request is fulfilled:
module ActionView
class Base
def pick_template_extension(template_path)
if match = delegate_template_exists?(template_path)
match.first
else
negotiate_content(template_path)
end
end
def negotiate_content(template_path)
result = 'rhtml'
if !controller.respond_to?(:request)
return result
end
negotiator = ContentNegotiator.new
(controller.request.env['HTTP_ACCEPT'])
negotiator.media_types.each do |media_type|
extension = media_type.extension
if media_type.extension and
template_exists?(template_path, extension)
result = extension
break
end
end
result
end
end
end
One thing that is not immediately obvious is that this code will run every
time a template or partial is run. We can use this our advantage.
For example, let's say you want to serve HTML to Internet Explorer and
XHTML to Firefox.
First, in your layout file do this:
<%= render(:partial => 'layouts/doctype') %>
Next, create one partial for Internet Explorer, called _doctype.rhtml:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<% controller.response.headers["Content-Type"] = MediaType::HTML %>
And now one for Firefox called _doctype.rxhtml (make sure to get the extension right!):
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC
"-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
<% controller.response.headers['Content-Type'] = MediaType::XHTML %>
Notice that we are neatly able to reuse 99% of our templates for both browsers,
yet at the same time include the <?xml
...?> header
for Firefox but not Internet Explorer.
Last, its good to see that the Rails team has recently discovered the
HTTP Accept header and is adding support in Rails 1.1. I haven't had a chance to
look at their implementation yet since I'm not running
Edge Rails. So take the following comment with a grain of salt. Its certainly
a good thing for Rails to become more aware of MimeTypes, but as mentioned above,
I don't think controllers are the right place to do this.
There is one caveat though. Mime
Types are a blunt instrument (xml/text doesn't tell you much about a document)
and therefore do not provide sufficient information in all cases. The most obvious
example is trying to serve the same content type either via a standard browser
request or an Ajax request. In the former case you generally want to render
a layout and in the later case you do not. Of course, if you are able to make Ajax
requests use a different content type (i.e., JavaScript) then there aren't
any issues. Alternatively, you can always implement two different external apis
to take care of this case.
Once I get my hands on Rails 1.1 I'll make sure to update this plugin if it is
still useful.
Posted in Rails, Rails, REST, REST, Ruby, Ruby | 1 comment | no trackbacks
