One of the things that struck me about my discussion with JJ Dubray on a previous blog posting was how closely we agreed on fundamental architectural principles (decoupling of interface from implementation, avoiding a hub-and-spokes architecture, etc.), yet how diametrically opposed our views were on REST.
For example, I think REST does a great job of decoupling interface from implementation. JJ feels the exact opposite. Why?
Analysing the problem more closely, I guess the common examples of RESTful interface design are partly to blame.
1. A URI like
http://myapp.mycompany.com/customers/1234
where 1234 is the actual id of the customer in my database, would be a horrible example of tight coupling, in my opinion. I believe URIs should be opaque and meaningless. I think designers should take care to create a mapping layer that decouples their implementation data model from their externally exposed service data model.
For example, I would prefer this to be exposed:
http://myapp.mycompany.com/customers/cb77380-7425-11df-93f2-0800200c9a66
There should be a mapping within the service implementation that relates the opaque identifier "cb77380-7425-11df-93f2-0800200c9a66" to the customer's id within the domain data model, i.e., 1234. That would be true decoupling.
Mind you, the earlier example of tight coupling is not a limitation of REST, merely bad application design.
[Incidentally, I think UUIDs have given the world a wonderful gift in the form of an inexhaustible, federated, opaque identification scheme for resource representations. Decoupling identity is a key part of decoupling domain data models (Pat Helland's Data on the Inside) from service data models (Data on the Outside).]
2. Another bad example is the use of "meaningful" URIs. Even though the following two URIs may seem obviously related, client applications must not make any assumptions about their relationship:
http://myapp.mycompany.com/customers
http://myapp.mycompany.com/customers/1234
In other words, a client application must not assume that it can derive the resource representation for the set of customers by merely stripping off the last token "/1234" from the URI of an individual customer.
And this is not a limitation of REST either. The HatEoAS (Hypermedia as the Engine of Application State) principle says that client applications must only rely on fully-formed URIs provided by the service to perform further manipulations of resources. In other words, URIs are to be treated as opaque and client applications must not attempt to reverse-engineer them by making assumptions about their structure.
Examples like these are bad from the perspective of architects who understand the evils of tight coupling, and the ones who produce these examples understand it too, but these naive examples have the benefit of being easy to understand.
A RESTful system would work perfectly well with URIs that looked like these:
http://myapp.mycompany.com/51bb2db7-b51c-4fd9-b235-2b310a644a84
http://myapp.mycompany.com/a7ac1f23-6bc7-44be-af9b-4b68fd31879f
http://myapp.mycompany.com/208657ef-1e86-47ba-9c5f-3f177c018293
The first is a URI for a customer, the second is a URI for a bank account and the third is a URI for an insurance policy. How about that? This would be architecturally clean, but most REST newbies would go, "Huh? Weird!" and turn away with a shudder.
Sometimes, the desire for understandability of a design by humans introduces semantic coupling that is anti-SOA. I guess there's a trade-off that we need to be aware of, but it's not a limitation of REST itself. It's an application designer's choice.
3. In another context, JJ has expressed his opinion that SOA is about asynchronous peer-to-peer interaction, and I completely agree. Where I think he has misunderstood REST is in its superficial characteristic of synchronous request-response. There are several well-known design patterns for asynchronous interaction using REST, so in practice, this is not a limitation at all. The HTTP status code of "202 Accepted" is meant for precisely this condition - "I've received your message but have not yet acted on it". At one stroke, it's also a model for reliable message delivery. Combine a POST with a one-time token to ensure idempotence, then keep (blindly) trying until you get a 202 Accepted response. Voila! Reliable message delivery.
I find I am able to look beyond the superficial characteristics of REST that seem like showstoppers to JJ. I can see simple workarounds and Best Practice guidelines that can make a RESTful application fully compliant with SOA principles. JJ stops at the characteristics as given and concludes that REST is horribly antithetical to SOA.
