I'm struggling to see how this is RESTful. I'm referring to the downloaded GitHub ServiceStack.Examples\src\ServiceStack.Examples\ServiceStack.Examples.sln. I do not see anything restful about this, there is no RESTful routes here at all and the method names are all verbs but they're all like GEtThis, etc. I don't see any Http verb attributes, nothing here.
Can someone explain what this is here becuase I feel like it doesn't even belong in the ServiceStack examples...??
Nobody said that example was supposed to be RESTful.
ServiceStack is a general services framework that lets you implement SOAP, MQ or REST+Web/HTML services with the same service.
The example your looking at is one of the first examples ever created for ServiceStack which makes use the Old API. You can compare and contrast it with the New API here. Since the example implements IService<T> it's not a REST service, since every HTTP Verb will invoke the same implementation above. To provide different implementations for each verb with the Old API you would need to inherit RestServiceBase<T> instead, or preferably use the New API.
If you want to consume this service via SOAP or MQ hosts than you need to ensure its accessible via POST by either maintaining single operation per Request DTO like this or by using a method named either Post() or Any() in the New API.
Related
Summary
I am seeing a lot of contradictory architectural examples of a REST API in my work and keep getting different opinions on the subject.
I am familiar with the principles of REST and seeing as each endpoint points to a resource followed by a verb such as /project/create project/123/read.
Following the MVC pattern assuming I have a controller that is responsible for updating a project resource:
router.put("/project/:id/update", ProjectController.put)
First question:
Should this route be responsible for all updates to this resource, in example, assuming different features on my client like marking a project as finished or changing it's title are separated and might not have anything in common for the user. Ending up with the route described above, or should there be something like this:
router.put("/project/:id/mark-as-done", ProjectController.markAsDone)
router.put("/project/:id/update-info", ProjectController.updateInfo)
Second question:
Assuming I want to create a notification resource if a project is created/updated/deleted. Since the notification is a resource on it's own I am not sure how to go about this, but what I assumed and was taught is to use another callback:
router.put("/project/:id/update", ProjectController.put, NotificationController.create)
Third question:
Could I use the same controller to read all resources or just one, for example:
router.get("/project/read", ProjectController.get)
router.get("/project/:id/read", ProjectController.get)
Making the logic in the controller method determinate if it will return all projects or just one. Or should it be separated into different methods?
I would define APIs like this:-
CRUD for Project entity
create- router.post(/projects)
update:- router.put(/projects/:id)
delete:- router.delete(/projects/:id)
read:- router.get(/projects) and/or router.get(/projects/:id)
You can define all above routes in ProjectController.
Regarding Notification entity you can define as follows
read:- router.get(/projects/:id/notifications)
The same can be applied to PUT, DELETE, POST
Here is a good article defining rest guidelines https://stackoverflow.blog/2020/03/02/best-practices-for-rest-api-design/
I would like to add some common authentication code to a collection of HttpTrigger Azure Functions (v3), which I'm using as an API. I know about the service-side auth associated with AuthorizationLevel.Function, but that won't work for me. The type of auth I need to do is relatively simple: just check a specific HTTP header for a specific value.
In ASP.NET, this kind of thing can be done in an HttpModule. Do Azure Functions have a similar request pipeline of some kind?
As far as I can tell from the documentation, it looks like new Function instances can call Startup.Configure() before calling the target method, if the project is appropriately configured. However, those calls are intended to support Dependency Injection, and don't have access to the HttpRequest object.
Obviously, I could just put an isAuthorized(request) call at the beginning of each API entry point, but that feels klunky, repetitive, and potentially error-prone. Is there a better way?
When you create a model/controller using sails generate user, which models are available? For instance, I know there some like basic CRUD, etc, but how to see all available methods?
PS: Unless I got it all wrong and there are no CRUD methods at all. I'm still learning Sails, so please forgive if its a silly question.
Basically, there are two groups of actions provided by Sails.js blueprints for a newly generated model/controller pair:
REST API: get /:controller/:id?, post /:controller, put /:controller/:id, delete /:controller/:id. These are classic REST set that should be the one being used in production. You can enable/disable these blueprints via rest property in config/controllers.js.
CRUD actions aka shortcuts: /:controller/find/:id?, /:controller/create, /:controller/update/:id, /:controller/destroy/:id. Inspired, by Rails' RESTful conventions, the shortcuts provide a way to call all the REST actions from browser address string, using GET HTTP method only, which can be very handy for developers. These can be enabled/disabled using shortcuts property in config/controllers.js, and it's a good idea to disable them in production (for example, using local environment settings (config/local.js)).
The Problem
I'm aware of the basic way to create a route/endpoint in ServiceStack using methods with names like "Get", "Post", "Any", etc inside a service but in the particular case that I'm trying to work with I have an existing service (which I can make an IService via inheritance) that can not be retrofitted w/ServiceStack attributes and currently uses DTOs for the requests and responses.
This service contains many functions that I do not want to manually mask (as this is a pass-through layer) but otherwise already conform to ServiceStack's requirements. What I'm wondering is if there's a way to manually create these routes in a way that would work like I've mocked up here. My existing functions and DTOs already contain the information I would need to define the routes so if this approach is possible it would only require me to enumerate them at initialization time as opposed to generating the services layer manually.
I noticed there is an extension method on Routes.Add that takes an Expression of type Expression> but I was not able to get that working because I believe the underlying code makes assumptions about the type of Expression generated (LambdaExpression vs MemberExpression or something like that). I also may be barking up the wrong tree if that's not the intended purpose of that function but I can not find documentation anywhere on how that variant is supposed to work.
Why?
I'm not sure this is necessary but to shed some light on why I want to do this as opposed to retrofitting my existing layers: The current code is also used outside of a web service context and is consumed by other code internally. Retrofitting ServiceStack in to this layer would make every place that consumes it require ServiceStack's assemblies and be aware of the web service which is a concern I want separated from the lower code. We were previously using MVC/WCF to accomplish this goal but we want some of the features available from ServiceStack.
the current architecture looks like this:
data -> DAL -> discrete business logic -> composition -> web service
Hopefully that makes enough sense and I'm not being obtuse. If you would like any more details about what I want to do or why I'll try to update this post as soon as possible.
Thanks!
You might use the fallback route in order to provide your own routing mechanism.
Then you get the request.Path property and route using your own mapping of path:Function which can be stored in a simple dictionary.
Anyway, if you go this path I don't see much benefit in using servicestack. It seems you just need an http handler that routes requests to existing services.
I know this at least IMO is a stupid request. Because WSDL is old hat and sucks compared to just doing a RESTful API. But I have a corporate "mandate" where we want to do a REST API but then corporate wants a WSDL still. I know..it makes no sense and apparently we can't push back and say NO and tell them to just use our future REST API.
So can you generate a WSDL if I were to start creating a REST API with ServiceStack? Meaning I add uri attributes and such? So that I can "make them happy"?
I prefer not to use WCF, it's a nightmare with a ton of attributes and configuration to try and hack a RPC style web service to try and be RESTful. Obviously that doesn't work out too well.
SOAP along with REST is supported and you can have REST API along with soap wsdl. There are some recommendations posted in servicestack wiki that you can review and get started! You just need to implement the restful service and soap, json, xml etc are automatically supported.