In response to: Amazon proves that REST doesn’t matter for Cloud APIs

A monkey from Spatially AdjustedI posted this in response to: Amazon proves that REST doesn’t matter for Cloud APIs. Some people really frustrate me. I know I’m a RESTafarian (so coined for people who have an unhealthy enjoyment of REST), but really, Amazon haven’t proven anything, other than being arrogant and disrespecting developers.



It seems strange that someone with such a clear idea of what a RESTful web service is for and why it’s there makes such a ridiculous statement as ‘… REST doesn’t matter for Cloud APIs’.

At it’s simplest, REST is a way for communicating; a ruleset or a bunch of guidelines which, when adhered to, make being a consumer of these APIs much easier. I’ll address some points in the post:

Has this lack of REStfulness stopped anyone from using it? Has it limited the scale of systems deployed on AWS? Does it limit the flexibility of the Cloud offering and somehow force people to consume more resources than they need? Has it made the Amazon Cloud less secure? Has it restricted the scope of platforms and languages from which the API can be invoked? Does it require more experienced engineers than competing solutions?

1) Your set of questions, all of which answer ‘No’, is missing one and a pretty fundamental one at that. Does the fact that AWS use their own implementation of an API instead of a standard like, oh, I don’t know, REST, frustrate developers who really don’t want to have to learn another method of communicating with AWS? Yes.

Here’s a rule of thumb. If most invocations of your API come via libraries for object-oriented languages that more or less map each HTTP request to a method call, it probably doesn’t matter very much how RESTful your API is.

2) The rule of thumb: Who writes these libraries for the Object Oriented Languages you speak of? Oh, yes – developers. See Point 1.

The Rackspace people are technically right when they point out the benefits of their API compared to Amazon’s. But it’s a rounding error compared to the innovation, pragmatism and frequency of iteration that distinguishes the services provided by Amazon. It’s the content that matters.

3) If Rackspace are ‘technically’ right, then they’re right. There’s no grey area. Morally, they’re also right and mentally, physically and spiritually, they’re right.

If you think it’s rich, for someone who wrote a series of post examining “REST in practice for IT and Cloud management” (part 1part 2 and part 3), to now declare that REST doesn’t matter

4) Yes, it is rich.

As commenter John Leach says, it’s disrespectful to developers to implement and entirely different method of communicating with your API just because you’re amazon and you can do what you like.

Put it this way. If, every time you hired a car, the cockpit setup was the same; the pedals were in the same place, the wheel turned left and right and the speedo was in front of you, you’re comfortable and happy. Then, one day, you hire a car from Amazon Car Hire. The pedals are now handles and they’re all identical, the wheel is a yoke and the speedo is above your head. You’d be pretty pissed off. Especially if Amazon Car Hire were the only people you could hire a car from.

Not a perfect analogy, but the bottom line is, just because you’re amazon, doesn’t give you the right to buck the standard, regardless of how loose or ill-defined that standard might be.

What happens when Microsoft do it? Everyone hates IE8 and there furore.

Why do I even care what version your API is? Versioning your API with HATEOAS

Original image by zenera
I HATE OA(R)S. Original image by zenera

This is another in my unofficial series on stuff to do with REST. You can see the others by clicking here for API Anti-Patterns or here for Cookies and the RESTful API.

Notice what I did there? Think hard. I linked some other documents that you can GET. Click’em and you’ll:


What I did there was provide you with two hypertext links, one to each of the other posts about REST that I’ve written. This is HATEOAS. You see,  you don’t actually need to know those two links above to be able to find them, you don’t even really need to know this link to THIS blog post, you only need to know my endpoint, which is Navigate to there, and then you can get to each and every other page on my blog without having to know the URLs.

Even if you DID know my URLs (and by ‘know’ I mean bookmark, only the most diehard Mike Pearce fans memorise all my blog post URLs, dontcha Jon?) I might, one day, decide to change the schema, so they wouldn’t work. However, you’d get a 404 and a list of possible URLs, or I might even 301 redirect you if I was feeling nice (and this wasn’t hosted on The thing about this hypermedia is that it’s so easy to get anywhere you like, the very definition of surfing.

CAN HAZ ENDPOINT. (Image by kwerfeldein)

So, now you’ve had a short tutorial on what HATEOAS means, Hypermedia As The Engine Of Application State, essentially means that your clients shouldn’t be building their own URIs. They should be requesting one of your endpoints and retrieving a list of URI with which they can interact with with one of the HTTP verbs (GET, PUT, DELETE, UPDATE, POST). The idea (which I illustrated above) is, that as an API provider, should you need to, you can change your URIs when you like and your clients will still know how to access all the resources of your API (if they’ve written their client to support that kind of thing). You could get away with one endpoint, the root of your API URI scheme. But it might be nice to provide one or two more which aren’t every going to change, perhaps:

Further, you can then provide your users with a list of properties that the API response will return at each of these endpoints, that links to the URIs they need to access to interact with your service. So, if the user were to:


The response might be:

		"add": "/users/add",
  		"update": "/users/updateUser",
  		"delete": "/users/deleteThatSucka"
  		"get.Details": "/users/$username",
  		"get.Email": "/users/$username/email",
  		"get.Dob": "/users/$username/dob

Now you’ve a contract with your clients that means they can visit any of the three endpoints and be able to navigate their way around the rest of your API. If you were a nice API provider you could provide examples of code for your clients to integrate into the software that interrogated your API for these endpoint URI indexes…

You see, I think that here it is a little fuzzy. The idea is that a client can and should be able to bookmark a URI it knows about and be able to call that URI and have your API still respond is one of the tenets of a REST API, but it’s at odds with HATEOAS.

Eggheads and Philosopers (Image by Dunechaser)
Eggheads and Philosopers (Image by Dunechaser)

Anyway, that’s for eggheads and philosophers. Use your best judgment to decide when and where to do this kind of thing, how many endpoints you have and what you provide as URIs to your clients.

I should really get to the point described in the title. But you’ve probably worked it out by now…

There are a couple of ways of versioning an API, check out slides 88 – 93 of my presentation in the API AntiPatterns presentation here, either on the URL, or in the body of a request or with primary and secondary URIs. The thing is, after I wrote that and while I spent a bit of time reading more about cookies, I decided that none of those methods of versioning were any good, the answer is…

… don’t actually bother with versioning. If you’re adhering to the HATEOAS contraint and you’ve created some good, solid endpoints, some documentation that creates contracts as to nomenclature of your URI properties with your clients, then you don’t need to version. Just change the URIs and the values of the URI properties at each endpoint and the client won’t even know you’ve done it.

Shhh, it’ll be our little secret!

Cookies and the RESTful API

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. 😉

API Anti-Patterns (how NOT to write a RESTful API)

[Vimeo w=640&h=385]

I had the honor of giving another talk at PHPLondon this month. Although I only had two weeks notice to research and write the thing, I think I managed to pull it off!

The talk was on API Anti-Patterns. I’d originally thought about doing a talk on How To Write a RESTful API, but the topic is enormous and sprawling and I only had 30 mins. So, I flipped the idea on it’s head and wrote about the things which we find with supposedly RESTful APIs which really aren’t RESTful. It’s shorter and, more importantly, funnier. So, below you’ll find the video and the slides from the night. Get in touch if you have any questions.

Continue reading “API Anti-Patterns (how NOT to write a RESTful API)”

Making sure your API doesn’t suck

A Phalanger - a type of possum. Awesome.

I’ve recently had the displeasure of working with an API published by one of our service providers. I won’t name names as it’d be a little embarassing, but we provision a lot of something from then and then those somethings are used and the provider records their use. The API exposes both the ability to manage these somethings and the ability to report on their use.

There’s a great REST book by the lovely people at O’Reilly (it has a Phalanger on the cover) which describe the best practices for building a RESTful API. There’s a lot covered in the book and I won’t go into it all here. However, there are some lessons to be learned from the book and from using APIs in general about writing an API, even if it isn’t restful.

Here is a (non-exhaustive) list of things to do to make sure your API doesn’t suck:

  1. Don’t return HTTP 200 OK for EVERY response. If the query to the API fails, send an appropriate response code.
  2. If you are COMPLETELY unable to send different response codes to describe the outcome of the request, make sure you send SOMETHING to the client so they know the status.
  3. Make sure this SOMETHING is documented.
  4. Try and return JUST ONE type of response. If XML, then just send XML. (Bonus tip: Don’t send XML with a plain text header, it’ll annoy your clients).
  5. Don’t send mixed responses. For example; if your documentation states the client can request a CSV, send a CSV, don’t send the error as XML and the CSV as success. If it doesn’t work, send an appropriate HTTP response … oh, right…
  6. Document stuff.
  7. Don’t describe methods in the URL:, param2, paramn) is NOT RESTful (and is stretching the description of API).
  8. Use POST, GET, UPDATE and DELETE properly and in context.
  9. Send API auth credentials with HTTP auth, not in the URL. They can be read in the logs.
  10. Try and make sure that upstream errors are reported faithfully by your API. No point in the API returning OK when the request IT made upstream failed. There’s no confidence in Confidence-Free-Town

There’s probably more, but that’s all I’ve uncovered when working with client APIs. Avoid those 10 items and you’ll be well on your way to writing an API that doesn’t suck!