Right, after my presentation at PHPLondon this month, the most contentious issue was that of using cookies with your REST API. I said, in no uncertain terms, that you shouldn’t do it. There were a few cries from the audience which were akin to the flapping you hear in a parliamentary broadcast, Derick Rethans didn’t agree but had the grace not to publicly embarrass me* and one comment on the original post requesting a clarification of my statement.
So, to clarify!
One of the most important constraints of REST is that it should be stateless, that is, every request made to API should contain everything the application needs in order to service the request. Now, at it’s most terse, that is my clarification, however, the quicker witted and cleverer among you will be proud to announce that a cookie is part of a HTTP request, and you’d be right, so, more clarification is needed.
In order to get to my decision that cookies shouldn’t be used with a REST API, you have to consider HATEOAS (Hypertext As The Engine Of Application State). What this means is that, a client only needs to know one, well published, end point to your entire API and from there, they can navigate the whole damn thing. Many people have blogged on this (including the big man himself), so I shan’t go into it right now, take a look at those links, but it’s safe to say that your clients shouldn’t be building their own URIs, they should be given the URIs from the API. Following this through to it’s logical conclusion means that the client shouldn’t be storing anything that isn’t the well published end point, because you, as the service provider, could change the requirement of whatever it is the client has stored as a cookie on a whim and then the client is banjaxed.
An example you say? OK. Let’s assume for a moment that we all agree that storing login information on the client is NOT GOOD. Right? (Consider XSS briefly and you’ll understand why – although less relevant nowadays, it’s still relevant (just)). OK, so the only other logical thing we might want to store in a cookie is an authentication token. That seems fairly harmless in it’s implementation, no? Yes it is and really, we could end the post here as, at a push, this is probably the one thing that IS OK to store in a cookie.
But I don’t sanction it.
Why? Because it doesn’t adhere to the constraints of HATEOAS and statelessness. Now the client has a cookie with an authentication token in it, you cannot change the way you authenticate, or the way the token is created without breaking the link between your API and each client that is using that token. If you publish a change to your REST API which handles the tokens differently, each and every cookie token will be useless.
Granted, this example doesn’t really offer anything that couldn’t be fixed with another login, but that’s not the point. The point is, it’s not RESTful.
To wit; this is a rule you can break and, probably, get away with it. However, you’ll feel dirty as it won’t be REST; try not to do it, make Roy happy.
*Although, he did heckle me on many other points. 😉