rest-proposal-preso

From Microformats Wiki
Revision as of 05:30, 15 October 2005 by DrErnie (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

XHTML-REST

The purpose of this presentation is to describe and justify a proposal for using microformants to constrain REST implementations.

Web Services: RPC vs. REST

  • RPC: Remote Procedure Calls
    • URIs are method names
    • XML is the arguments format
    • Implemented in XML-RPC and SOAP
  • REST: Representational State Transfer
    • Nouns are URIs, verbs are HTTP: GET, PUT, POST, DELETE
    • XML documents are state information
    • Implemented at Atom, Amazon (sorta)

Advantages of REST over RPC/SOAP

  • Much simpler to design
    • Easy to identify appropriate nouns
    • Don't need to define methods (verbs)
    • Don't need a complete object model
  • Easier to learn/invoke
    • Always know what a URI means
    • Need not 'tunnel' XML inside XML

Challenges of REST

Discoverability
No standard way to find services
Interoperability
Too many incompatible ways to encode links, data
Extensability
What if your schema isn't 100% right?
Comprehensability
What the heck does "state transfer" mean?

Solution, Part I-A: XHTML

  • Use XHTML Basic instead of XML
  • Don't need a rigid schema
  • No namespaces; free to extend as needed
  • Everyone (in this space) can write it
  • Everything (in the world) can read it

Solution, Part I-B: XHTML Microformats

  • microformats: Add 'semantic salt' to XHTML
    • Annotate existing XHTML tags with meaning
    • Machine-parseable yet human-readable
  • Links as <a href=> and <form action=>
  • Lists as XOXO: eXtensible Open XHTML Outlines

Solution, Part II: Browser clients

Solution, Part III-A: Web as database

  • CRUD: Create, Retrieve, Update, Delete
  • Structured URLs vs. Opaque URIs
  • Note: need not reflect actual database
    • Synthetic "user model" for public API purposes
    • But, an easy way to start (cf. Ruby on Rails)

Solution, Part III-B: Web as database

  • base: defines service
    • GET base?query # search across all tables
  • table: collection of URLs with same schema
    • GET table?query # search across this table
    • URIs become primary keys for joins!
  • record: individual item, user, cart, etc.
    • POST table?data # update record

Solution, Part III-C: Web as database

The 0.8% Solution for Web Services

  • (80% of benefit/20% of effort)^3
    • XHTML vs. XML: 80/20
    • GET/POST vs. REST: 80/20 x 80/20 = 64/4
    • Database vs. freeform URIs: 80/20 x 64/4 = 51.2/0.8
  • Half the benefit for 1% of the effort!
    • Maybe not everything, but the basics easily
    • Power comes from how much you can ignore

Implications

  • The 'missing link' for REST?
  • The 'killer app' for Ruby on Rails?
  • The "tipping point" for web services?
    • Looser than XML => easier compatibility
    • Tighter than REST => better interoperability
    • Simpler than SOAP => greater adoption

Examples (TBD)

  • ?view=api (dictionary of valid requests)
  • {base,table}?query (OpenSearch)
  • base/ (home page)
  • table/ (section page)
  • table?view=edit (record creation forms)

Examples - Records (TBD)

  • record/ (default view)
  • record?view=edit (record update)
  • record?view=list (dt/dd list)
  • record?view=table (th/td row)

But Wait, There's More!

  • Not just for web services
    • Do your whole website this way!
    • CSS classes + styles => prettified XHTML
    • Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY): website == API
  • Perfect solution for AJAX
    • AJAX: Asynchronous-JavaScript-and-XML
    • Actually, JAH: Just Asynchronous HTML
    • JavaScript loves HTML; fast, only eight lines of code!

For More Information