REST is the new SOAP - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@pakaldebonchamp/rest-is-the-new-soap-97ff6c09896d <comment><USER4> Why is REST so popular? Because it's easy to implement and works for lots of use cases. I'm sorry that you found places it doesn't, but in the real world, having been through that SOAP pain it's being compared to, I'd say there's not even a comparison. Everyone seems to want to find a reason to dislike product/technology/feature X but in this case, X is just better than anything we've had for a 90% adoption case.

What is with medium.com? Why is it so many links to this site are full of hateful hipsteresque opinions looking to sound smarter and more insightful than they actually are?

<comment><USER5> I avoid medium posts as much as possible. Everyone is an expert on there with very strong opinions telling me how every technology older than 2 years and not written in javascript is obsolete/dead/not the right way/new <insert a dead technology>.

And what's with the UI on their publications. They take up top 25% of the screen with the branding and navbar and bottom 10% asking me to sign in and both sticks on the screen. Who approved that?

<comment><USER6> I use the stylish add-on for Firefox and remove the bars.

[https://userstyles.org/styles/browse?search_terms=medium.com](https://userstyles.org/styles/browse?search_terms=medium.com)

<comment><USER7> alternatively, use a bookmarklet to remove floating div... name the such as '1\. rm float'

then, it's only alt-B -> 1 away, in Firefox

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think there's a tendency in software for people to start out without understanding all the complexities they're going to encounter. I think this is just human nature.

When you start out doing RPC you think, I don't want to bother with schemas, I don't want to bother with hierarchical error codes, I don't foresee the need to set the user's password but not retrieve it. So you don't want to bother with a technology which makes your life more difficult, to solve problems you don't have and cannot foresee.

So you choose something simple. But you run into all these problems anyway, because they exist, no matter if you were capable of foreseeing them or not.

But by then it's too late. You've written 50 KLOC and you just have to keep going.

I believe this is why many technologies become popular which are actually too simple to handle the types of problems they try to solve.

I blogged about this concept here: [https://www.databasesandlife.com/the- cycle-of-programming-la...](https://www.databasesandlife.com/the-cycle-of- programming-languages/)

<comment><USER9> Yup. It's the mechanism behind programming as a pop culture. Kids without a lot of experience are sick of the old way because it's too hairy and complicated, they come out with a fresh new approach that isn't nearly as broadly applicable, then it gets improved until it's fit for general purpose, at which point it's hairy and complicated and the cycle starts again.

I don't think that everything is standing still, though. Usually each successive generation has an edge on the previous one; either the previous generation was constrained by memory or CPU or bandwidth and had self-limiting architecture because of it, or the next generation needs to solve a problem involving an order of magnitude more data or compute and it needs a different approach.

But, of course, not everyone (or, realistically, not many people at all) is constrained by the thing that causes the revolution; people usually just get on the bandwagon because you must, if you don't you won't be as employable, won't be as hip, you'll find it harder to employ engineers to work on your project, etc.

<comment><USER10> The best technologies can be understood and used in a simple case by a beginner but still "unfurl" to handle the general case.

The worst force you to embrace the entire complexity before you can even hello world.

Progress is being made.

<comment><USER11> Aka JWZ's Cascade of Attention Deficit Teenagers (CADT).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I agree 100% with this article. A simple RPC API spec takes minutes to define. 'Rest'ifying takes much longer, there are a million little gotchas, no real standard. Everyone has a different opinion of how it should be done. Data is spread across verbs, urls, query params, headers, and payloads. Everyone thinks everyone else doesn't 'get' REST. If you try to suggest something other than REST in the office you become the subject of a witch hunt. It really is a cargo cult of pointlessness. My co-workers have spent sooo much time trying to get swagger to generate documentation correctly as well as generate client side APIs, and there are countless gotchas we are still dealing with. It really is SOAP 2.0, when a simple JSON/RPC protocol would of done fine. Don't get me started with conflating http server errors with applications errors. And trying to do action like requests with a mindset optimized for CRUD. How much time have we wasted figuring out the 'standard' way to do just a login API call RESTfully. Please comment below how to do it, I love the endless debate of what is REST and what is not.

<comment><USER4> Well, I'm glad you can put together an RPC api that quick, but the reason REST is so ubiquitous and why arguing against it is going to make you the subject of a witch hunt is because it's so easy to consume. Your API is useless if people don't want to use it.

<comment><USER13> But like the article mentioned, clients using REST are used to dealing with wrappers written for their language anyway. They'd prefer to not bother with URLs, query strings, and MIME types, and simply consume an API in the language that feels natural for them.

You can argue that REST is easier to debug for developers, but nothing makes XML-RPC or binary protocols inherently _less_ easier to debug. It depends on the platform and library you're using.

I wholeheartedly agree with the article. Well done.

<comment><USER14> > are used to dealing with wrappers written for their language anyway

And the wide availability of those is because it's so easy to build one over obvious REST apis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Surprised to have scrolled this far and not see one mention of GraphQL. It has a discoverable, schema based design, strongly typed. It segments requests into three types, queries, mutations, and subscriptions. Queries are simple data fetching. Mutations can be treated like RPC calls. Subscriptions are for long lived connections to receive live updates for data queries. I think it fixes a lot of problems with REST. I think it works extremely well with microservice architecture.

<comment><USER16> I thought this was a snarky title for a GraphQL article. Since implementing a server in GraphQL, I much prefer it to REST

<comment><USER17> Where I'm at we have an entity component system in postgres for DB (Entity table with just an id as primary key, then all other tables only have foreign keys to the Entity table). We were implementing random REST routes which tried to line up with typeful ideas which don't exist in the DB but which the page structure of the site exposes. Switched to GraphQL, bunch of methods on a ReadEntity, an UpdateEntity, & a CreateEntity; currently implementing a clientside ECS to mirror this so that the clientside can work on intermediate entities & then submit them together. GraphQL server's real simple, just focuses on access control. Frontend gets to grab whatever components it needs for a given React component. Have ideas on how optimization can be added by adding in prefetch hints to avoid staggered loading

Sorry if this feels like a tangent hijack rant, but figured I'd drop a line on trying to explain what makes GraphQL so good

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Lots of comments here arguing REST is popular because it's easy, but there's another higher level reason too: it forces you to think about the network.

In far too many RPC protocols, calling functions that operate over a network are treated like normal functions. A function call, almost by definition, fails to take into account network errors, and race conditions where multiple events overlap. Network calls are not function calls, and the fact that REST calls are relatively distinct from normal function calls is a good thing.

<comment><USER19> If a network (or endpoint) fails you usually only few options during runtime, retry, skip, stop. That is pretty much all you want to know. Everything else is specific to the endpoint, which is more about contracts and constraints then about networking. You either use the endpoint correctly of not. I.e. using a database like MySQL has similar constraints. And decent engineers know how to work with it and where it is happening.

<comment><USER20> Yep, and no amount of REST / other introspective boilerplate can help about the fundamental problem of not being synchronized.

There is no solution to the "A knows X, but B does not know that A knows X, or A does not know that B knows that A knows X, or B does not know that A knows that B knows that A knows X..." problem.

Other than that, I think at some level networking is nothing more than function calls that can take a long time and/or fail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> CORBA is the best protocol I ever dealt with. Strong contractual semantics, exceptions, interface definitions. Spiced with transparent compression, encryption and bi-directional communication. All those goodies were already available 12 years ago.

The only downside - it required a reliable and precise implementation that took a lot of efforts. I always used IIOP.NET for most of my gigs and it was excellent. I also ended up as an active IIOP.NET contributor.

CORBA ORB implementation was a fine art a few could grasp. And this was the biggest drawback - the standard was (and is) excellent, but most implementations tend to be complex and shaky.

I still actively use CORBA. The server usually offers two kind of endpoints: REST for third-party integrations (which are usually naive and simplistic), and CORBA for the system itself. I've built nice things with such architecture that involved worldwide deployments including embedded hardware. I am very proud of my involvement and the fact that I could help to improve the everyday routine for many people worldwide.

<comment><USER22> I was somewhat involved with CORBA in its early days. It had some very smart people driving it. It was derived from work already being done by the large companies like IBM, DEC, Apollo, Sun, HP, and Microsoft.

But CORBA was haunted by a key principle that limited its influence. Unlike the IP protocol stacks, which are layered from the lowest wire protocols on up to the highest layers, CORBA dictated the highest level protocols and didn't address the lower level protocols. _Different CORBA implementations couldn 't talk to each other_; consequently, CORBA didn't work for my company because we were was trying to design a product that could work across heterogeneous networks of workstations and servers.

If the CORBA folks were so smart (and they were), how could this happen? Why didn't they design the original CORBA protocols from say UDP or TCP on up? The CORBA members were all from different companies, and all had different independent products. There was fierce competition in this space so it was impossible for the members of CORBA to agree on the low level networking protocols because doing so would harm some companies' product lines while benefiting an others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I feel like this is the root of the author's agitation:

"I don't care. Trees are recognized by their own fruits. What took me a few hours of coding and worked very robustly, with simple RPC, now takes weeks..."

He seems unhappy that REST doesn't work the way his familiar tool (RPC) does. I myself worked with middleware-messages-over-TCP systems for a decade before switching to web apis. I don't have this issue. And I personally don't follow the "holy specification", and REST works just fine for me.

<comment><USER18> The problem is the assumption of a "simple RPC" protocol... there is no such thing. There are network issues, proxy errors, and two-sided race conditions that complicate any network related code. Network programming is distributed programming, which is not easy. RPC protocols try to mask that difficulty, but more often than not they sweep it under the rug.

RPCs make it easy to get started on a dev machine. making network calls appear like function calls definitely speeds things up when the network is working perfectly, but it papers over the complexities of debugging network issues and complex distributed race conditions, which will inevitably come up later.

Being explicit with network communication has its benefits.

(corollary: for the same reason as above, I don't like lazy evaluation of database queries that exist in many languages. When you hit a database, it should be intentional, you should know about it, and should properly prepare for any necessary network issues, caching, and cursors. Many modern web frameworks gloss over this).

<comment><USER24> I don't see how those things are really solved with rest, particularly given that people will often be using a wrapper rather than building their URLs manually everywhere.

<comment><USER18> Definitely not "solved", just made more explicit, kind of like a warning sign in the road. A while ago I worked with an RPC system where the RPC calls looked just like normal function calls... everything worked well, until it didn't.

Anytime a computer program consumes a potentially scarce resource (e.g., network, disk, database, etc), there should be some warning-sign or flag raised to the developer. RPC hides that, whereas REST makes it more explicit. So much of programming is social, and the mechanics of REST, even though theoretically identical to RPC, raise many social flags warning of danger ahead.

<comment><USER20> Or in other words, there is absolutely no technical justification for using this overly verbose and unmaintainable mess. It's just some vague philosophical thing that has no clear benefits. Like OOP.

<comment><USER18> Do you consider clarity, maintainability, and readability a "philosophical thing" or a "technical" one?

<comment><USER20> I doubt that these qualities are actually achieved. Generally I don't think there have been many (if any) languages where excessive verbosity built in to the language has proven to be a good idea. Think COBOL, Java...

It's worse if not only statements are longer, but you are actually forced to treat similar things in very different ways (like URL resource vs query string vs post parameters). It just increases code complexity without any clear benefit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> We developers need to understand there are no one-size fits all solutions. No protocol is optimal for all use-cases. Design is always a question of trade offs. Architectures are _means to an end_.

The OP's story is a bit weird, because it seems they had a system which worked very well with XML-RPC, but they changed it to REST for no apparent reason except that "REST is the future". Regardless of the merits of REST vs RPC, such a change will require a major redesign of the system. The resource- oriented world view of REST is very different from the procedure-call oriented XML-RPC. You really need to clarify what benefit you hope to achieve before attempting such a redesign.

The problem with the article is it doesn't really consider the use cases where REST is appropriate and when it is not. Rather it blames anything on the protocol itself which is considered "good or "bad" completely disconnected from use cases.

> And you're gone for hours, reinventing the wheel.

So don't do that. The fault lies not with the technology.

<comment><USER20> Sorry, but these kinds of excuses always remind me of homeopathy zealots explaining why there technology didn't work in _this_ case.

REST, just like OOP, is not a means to an end. It's fundamentally wrong. It's trying to shoehorn strange philosophical viewpoints into what's a technical problem. It's trying to decompose problems that can't be decomposed. It's... never the right solution. I've never seen it succeed. Like, ever.

<comment><USER25> Are you saying OOP _never_ have value?

<comment><USER20> Yes.

Well, the exception perhaps being that its object-verb syntax supports function name completion in IDEs better. But I think it's a net negative, since it has more negative effects on architecture (wrong structure, because developers are encouraged to invent vague concepts to be home to methods that do less and less. It leads to endless bikeshedding).

Not to speak of other bad ideas that once defined what OOP was, and are now commonly seen as wrong - like inheritance or even multiple inheritance.

<comment><USER25> And you have _never_ seen an OOP project succeed?

<comment><USER20> I've seen quite a few good projects written in an "OOP" language, but not in an OOP style - mostly misuse classes for namespacing (which I don't think is a good idea either since it makes usages of namespaced things hard to find).

I've never seen a "true" OOP project that wasn't quite a mess and couldn't have been written much cleaner in a plain old procedural style:

Use freestanding functions, the most successful abstraction to date.

Stop with that singleton bullshit. Most things that need to be managed exist precisely once in a program (talk to the sound card, to the printer, to the network, to the graphics card, to the file system, allocate memory...). Making classes first and instanciating once (or how many times, how can I know by looking at that handle?) is just plain silly, overly verbose, and confusing to the consumer of the API.

Don't couple allocation and initialization. It's a stupid idea. It leads to pointless, inefficient, and (in some languages) error-prone one-by-one allocations.

Flat fixed structs for data organization. By default expose struct size for massive decrease in memory allocation. Expose almost all fields (except for truly platform / implementation-defined ones) and stop with that silly getter/setter boilerplate.

Mostly use data tables (with direct integer indexing mostly) like in a relational database, for data-driven architectures. (CS/programming technology TODO: How can we switch between AOS/SOA more seamlessly? Maybe we can get inspiration from Graphics APIs?)

Don't use silly flexible-schema XML/object hierarchies to "compensate" for having no idea what's in the data. It doesn't help.

Make interfaces ("vtables" if you will) only sometimes where they are _needed_ , not by default. Don't call this inheritance. Bullshit. It's an interface, not more, not less. If you think interface descriptions must typically be bundled with each data item, think harder. They are independent data.

We don't need no friggin "doer" objects for every simple thing. It doesn't help a bit, but only makes things less readable and more complex. Just do what needs to be done!

<comment><USER26> Most of the things you mention are considered anti-patterns in OOD nowadays anyway:

\- singletons

\- getters/setters everywhere (but not in favour of public fields, which just as much introduce tight coupling, but 'tell don't ask' style which allow to localise functionalities prone to change)

\- introducing interfaces upfront - it goes against Reused Abstraction Principle or Rule of Three (discover rather than design abstractions, apply interface only when you have at least 3 classes that would adhere to it)

Both OOD and functional programming try to reach loose coupling and composability by different means. All these 'patterns' have usually some more sane general architectural concern standing behind. It would be interesting to know whether old school procedural approach allows you to achieve all those architectural benefits in large scale applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> REST has the same problem as object oriented programming. It's too skeuomorphic. Lots of web applications _are_ wrappers around conceptually monolithic resources, so it's convenient to use a protocol that makes that assumption. But as soon as you need to nest resources, or perform some action that has nothing to do with CRUD, or do just about anything interesting, the metaphor begins to fall apart.

(That's also why OOP has all these "patterns." Many are just attempts to cope with the "object" metaphor falling apart. "Is" an AttackingRock a Monster, or "is" it an Obstacle? Hmm...)

</comment><comment><USER28> Although the article somewhat exaggerates the problem and in fact REST is great for many applications, truth is (IMHO) REST is indeed overrated and the RPC style (don't confuse it with SOAP!) is over-vilified in the IT culture. In so many (though far not in all of them) cases a concise JSON-RPC API would be a much more elegant solution than REST. I believe this is a great example of where the "right tool for the job" principle should be applied rather than a buzzword cult.

Many comments here emphasize on the problem of developers expecting RPC functions to be as reliable as local functions are. Well, that's their own problem, IMHO. The only appropriate solution is to remind them they are doing it wrong, e.g. the same way REST gurus use to remind everybody they are doing REST wrong. In fact there is a huge number of "developers" around who just invoke all the file system, database and network (REST, RPC, SOAP or whatever) calls synchronously, don't validate inputs nor outputs and don't even wrap the calls in try/catch (believe me, I used to support a fairly popular API and had to explain this stuff to just soooo many people complaining about their apps hanging or panicking on occasions when our REST API quirks (e.g. a field is missing from the response) or fails).

</comment><comment><USER29> This article expressed a lot of what I've been mulling for years.

I must've spent hours of my life poring over the Wikipedia HTTP Response Codes page, looking for the most expressive error code for my situation. It's barmy.

<comment><USER23> You don't need to. For me, REST can be as simple as: encode the type of request into the URL, request parameters into URL parameters and/or query parameters, request data into a JSON payload. Use GET for read-only operations, and if you're really not particular about it, use POST for everything else. Return 200 for success, 400 for client error and 500 for server error. Transport a more detailed application error code and description in the response body. That's it.

<comment><USER18> You don't even need that. I don't think there is anything wrong with returning a 200 response with a JSON body that has some 'error' tag built into it. It may not be purely RESTful, but if it's obvious to the developer interacting with the API, who cares.

<comment><USER30> Yep and when I have to investigate production issues, you're the guy that makes me do slow wildcard queries of the detailed error text instead of just filtering on the (indexed) response code. You push your laziness onto the rest of the world that way.

<comment><USER18> I actually agree with your sentiment, but disagree with your characterization that it's "laziness"... how about not knowing?

<comment><USER30> You're right, that's most likely the main offender. Apologies. I've been consuming a lot of poorly written REST apis lately and am bitter.

<comment><USER31> The worst one I worked with recently would return 200 and only a human readable error message (no status). On top of that the message is sometimes phrased differently. Here is an example from memory: _" The field email is not valid."_ and _" You provided an invalid username."_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Grpc is the future, I'm amazed that nobody seems to be using it. Easy endpoint definitions and code generation in almost every popular language. Much faster than REST and zero boilerplate code. The client libraries even have http baked in so no "controllers" or route mapping to write. It's simply fantastic.

If you run into a language without grpc support you just standup a JSON proxy and pretend it's REST.

</comment><comment><USER33> I tried some experiments earlier this year with radically simpler RPC calling conventions. It's called NSOAP, and is available for express, koa and React. It gets rid of HTTP verbs and treats the url like code. [https://github.com/nsoap-official/nsoap-express](https://github.com/nsoap- official/nsoap-express)

Some examples.

      //Adds two numbers
      http://www.example.com/addTwoNumbers(10,20)

      //String arguments
      http://www.example.com/search(thomas)

      //Parameters
      http://www.example.com/math.square(x)?x=20

      //Chaining
      http://www.example.com/getCustomer(100).getAccounts(2017)

<comment><USER34> While on the surface that might seem like a workable idea, getting input validation right is going to require more syntax (making it far less clean). Specifically, URLs are only ever string data, so without type annotation everything is strings, even if it looks like a number, array, or even more complex data type.

<comment><USER33> > While on the surface that might seem like a workable idea, getting input > validation right is going to require more syntax (making it far less clean)

Input validation will go into the router, which I have created for Express, Koa and React. Application code will not have to deal with validation or parsing.

> Specifically, URLs are only ever string data, so without type annotation > everything is strings, even if it looks like a number, array, or even more > complex data type.

You'd have to pass more complex data types either in body (as JSON) or as parameters with quoting. Current router does however, infer types to the extent of:

      //Params inferred as string, number, boolean and number.
      curl "http://www.example.com/search(Jeswin,20,true,x)?x=100"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I read the article upto the point where they consider using rest to create an entry into the rest_password_email table or some such thing. That's stupid and ludicrous.

That isn't even a use case for REST. I think the writer needs to consider taht http APIs cover many different use cases with subtle differences. REST exists to solve the problem for one of those use cases, i.e. data model interactions over HTTP. But HTTP APIs can also implement function calls. Trying to emulate a function call, using REST is a terrible idea, and the blame lies with the developer that thought it would be a good idea. Not with REST.

Consider the logout operation. This a valid function call. But not using REST or any of it's principles. It's just a valid use case for HTTP. Now consider API methods that deal with a users profile information. Such as creating the user profile entry and later, maybe updating the address or status of the user. This would be a perfect example use case of REST.

TL;DR I think the author fails to understand that REST isn't and doesn't try to be a solution for every possible use case of an HTTP API. It's simply a framework for structuring APIs that directly, or almost directly interact with the models exposed by a webservice.

Now, onto RPC. RPC, is binary protocol over TCP. It's not even HTTP. RPC vs HTTP is a very valid argument depending on the use case/constraints for the project. But RPC vs REST is comparing two very different things. REST, IMO, derives most of it's flexibility from being built over HTTP, and not because REST is some kind of magic sauce that it's touted by many to be.

<comment><USER36> >Now, onto RPC. RPC, is binary protocol over TCP.

The author specifies two different RPC protocols in their article: XML-RPC and JSON-RPC. Both often do push plain text over HTTP.

> REST, IMO, derives most of it's flexibility from being built over HTTP, and > not because REST is some kind of magic sauce that it's touted by many to be

In that case, there is no difference between REST, XML-RPC, JSON-RPC, and SOAP. That could be a valid opinion to have, but I suspect it's not one most people would agree with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> REST isn't appropriate as a description of JSON-based apis because JSON isn't a natural hypertext and thus makes HATEOAS difficult to implement. Most JSON APIs described as REST are really RPC APIs with a bit of URL layout taken from the REST world.

Unfortunately XML-RPC was such a nightmare that calling something JSON-RPC was out of the question. Shame.

There are a few blog posts up on the intercooler website that discuss this that I found enlightening:

[http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/01/18/rescuing- rest.html](http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/01/18/rescuing-rest.html)

[http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/05/08/hatoeas-is-for- humans.ht...](http://intercoolerjs.org/2016/05/08/hatoeas-is-for-humans.html)

<comment><USER36> There is a thing called JSON-RPC: [http://www.jsonrpc.org/specification](http://www.jsonrpc.org/specification)

The author explicitly mentions it as something he prefers over REST (though he spends more time on XML-RPC)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think there's something even more fundamental.

The article talks about how to communicate between systems. But many systems don't need to be distributed.

If you can avoid writing a distributed system, that's easier than even a "better REST", if such a thing were to exist.

For example, old-style non-SPA web applications, can directly use underlying logic classes directly, can throw exceptions, need not serialize data, one connection to the DB with one transaction capable of rollback, and so on.

Or monolithic servers rather than microservices.

Sometimes you need RPC, but for those situations where you don't, avoiding RPC completely is a significant reduction in complexity.

</comment><comment><USER38> HTTP is just a way to communicate state - a protocol that _can_ be used for implementing the architectural style. Unfortunately, most of the rant is about HTTP.

Once you see HTTP just as one example of a more abstract way to interact in a client-server model, your focus will shift towards the more important topic: semantic formats that represent state, formats that make it easy to write clients against. And if you do it right, you build a vocabulary that represents your domains. A good format to start with is JSON-LD. But please don't just describe the entities of your business domain. You have to describe semantics of how the client can interact with the server and change state (like links, actions, feeds). And if you build a business around it, put these semantics / vocabularies at a central place - build something like [https://schema.org](https://schema.org) for your own corporation.

Then use HTTP for communication and building out your systems. And it will be more robust, flexible and scalable than anything built on SOAP.

</comment><comment><USER39> Those who refuse to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

REST is not the end of history, there can and should be successor architectures, but RPC is not that successor. It's been around a very long time and fell out of fashion for good reason. It is a convenient approach that can be used if you have major control over all the interfaces, endpoint implementations and underlying infrastructure, as Google does for its use of gRPC. It really falls over if you want independent implementations and variable infrastructures over a large scale, as is the case for most Internet / Web interactions.

RPC is fundamentally flawed in that it tries to pretend that the network doesn't exist and that distributed systems don't have fundamentally different concerns than single computer systems. A good overview of this history from 2009 is here: [https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/24415682/RPC-and- its-...](https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/24415682/RPC-and-its- Offspring-Convenient-Yet-Fundamentally-Flawed)

Keep in mind that REST only became popular around 2007, it was an uphill battle to popularize it from 2001 onwards. The web had grown to a mammoth, and vendors couldn't make money off it, so wanted to replace it with CORBA or some other RPC (SOAP). It took a concerted effort to fight that in standards bodies, on mailing lists, on blogs. Those days didn't have Github or social media or a myriad programmer conferences. The posts are still up if you want to see them. This history of having to fight to be perceived as relevant and useful is why REST tends to have a bit of misguided religion behind it. SQL proponents had the same issue longer ago.

The Web and REST led to the largest increase in networked computer interoperability in history, after the TCP/IP suite and Telnet. The architectural style is what catalyze JavaScript into such a ubiquitous language as it made mobile code a first class citizen in the architecture. It's what catazlyed Google into a powerhouse as it baked self describing, uniform interfaces as the standard, enabling spidering, indexing and analytics on a global scale. Moving on from it will be harder than people realize.

By all means, be an engineer - use RPC if it fits your problem and constraints better. Use event streams if it fits your problem better. Use GraphQL or SPARQL if a data query interface is a better solution for your needs. There is no one architecture. But please, rants about how the world would be better if we all did RPC, it comes across as very divorced from the wide variety of problems and suitable architectures out there.

<comment><USER20> > It really falls over if you want independent implementations and variable > infrastructures over a large scale, as is the case for most Internet / Web > interactions.

But what exactly? I can't really think of anything that would work without an interface description (like a HTML form).

Let's have a few informal RPC signature conventions for example for retrieving a Web page (the equivalent to HTTP GET). It would make developers lives easier. But essentially there is no problem with replacing links with remote procedure calls.

<comment><USER39> HTTP GET is one of the most formalized, optimized and tested standards in the world. Replacing that with "an informal RPC signature" would be a nightmare for developers : misunderstood semantics, little to no interoperability, poor performance, poor scalability, and on.

If you think there is no problem replacing hyperlinks with RPCs, be my guest, do so on all your forthcoming projects, and see if it works. It sounds like a bad idea to me but we are both just random people on the internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I author REST APIs and try to do them properly, with mediatypes, link relations, and all the good hypermedia stuff most people avoid. Nonetheless, the author's post reflects the sort of rant I've had to coworkers at the watercooler, or anyone who'd listen.

The author nicely preempts the debate about HATEOAS and "most RESTful APIs aren't REST" and shows that the debate is part of the problem. It is. It's not a spec but an architectural style, and people are bad at design (and quite honestly, they have better things to do with their time), so broad-stroke ideas about how to lay out your system aren't as useful as a framework or codegen. So the least-effort solution wins, where you half-ass implement first three three characteristics of REST-as-seemingly-observed-in-the-wild (HTTP, JSON, templated URLs), and call it a day. If it's good enough for Stripe and Twitter, it's good enough for you.

No wonder we're in this boat; one upon a time REST was just architectural and intellectual wankery, specified in an obtuse and hard-to-read thesis by a guy who's smarter than most of us combined. It sat unknown for years, until AJAX became all the rage, and people began making API calls from jQuery to load- and-splice parts of a page for rich interactivity. Here, a public, HTTP endpoint that served easily-parseable JSON made sense. Some prominent companies released public APIs in this style, and then the blogspam began.

Within a short amount of time, REST and "RESTful" was cool and forward- looking, and SOAP was old and crufty, and any kind of ad-hoc RPC was bad. Implementing a REST API wasn't solely about usability, but also signalling that your company was forward-looking too, rationality be damned, which is why most implementations cargo-cult look the same: HTTP, schemaless JSON, templated URLs. Endless debates about HATEOAS begin, and come to an unsatisfying conclusion, because real developers' concerns about architectural purity are dwarfed by their desire to build a mostly-working API that looks recognizable to the public, and move on.

Serious players looking for reliable internal RPC develop stuff like Thrift and gRPC, which are thoughtful reimplementations of the ideas behind 80s and 90s RPC, but with the added advantage of coming from a single vendor and not committee hell. Meanwhile, Facebook also reinvents SQL in JSON and gives it to the client, what could go wrong?

Maybe the reason "REST" won is because it was easy to glean and misunderstand well enough to put out something simple and good enough. This dominance of the low-end is going to be hard to undo.

<comment><USER41> > The author nicely preempts the debate about HATEOAS

What is the debate about HATEOAS?

What's the difference between an API with and without that quality?

<comment><USER42> Thank you. This is one that I've been puzzling over for years. If anyone has a straightforward answer, and can _provide example_ REST responses with and without "HATEOAS", I'd really appreciate it.

<comment><USER40> See the 'Richardson Maturity Model' levels [1], and contrast level 2 with 3. Level 3, satisfying the HATEOAS constraint, has hyperlinks leading to other resources, and the relationship between the origin and destination resource is qualified (with link relations [2]).

Essentially, everything is a graph, resources are the nodes, and the labels on edges are the relations, also serving as an inventory of state transitions.

The "HATEOAS debate" is the trope that says people will inevitably debate whether a particular API that claims to adhere to REST does in fact adhere to REST, because many APIs that namedrop REST don't satisfy the HATEOAS constraint. This is rarely a practical debate, but the fact that it keeps coming up -- and people take the time to explain -- is part of the problem with REST. This was the author's point.

[1] [https://martinfowler.com/articles/richardsonMaturityModel.ht...](https://martinfowler.com/articles/richardsonMaturityModel.html) [2] [https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link- relatio...](https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link- relations.xhtml)

<comment><USER41> I think the problem I have a hard time with HATEOAS is that I really can't see what difference it makes to the API. I mean I get that it's always better to return a URI rather than simply an ID. But the link relations feel like they are from a time when we all thought the semantic web (RDF and OWL) was going to be a very big deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Maybe REST was the best protocol for the great public API explosion of the past decade, where startups wanted to expose a public API to anyone on the internet. The most important requisite was that the most developers could access the API with a minimum of technical knowledge and tools, and the APIs were simple. I am less and less sure that REST is the best solution for communicating between internal services, which know a lot about each other and where you can spend time onboarding developers on a specific techniques and stack.

<comment><USER44> What do you think is a better solution?

<comment><USER43> I don't know yet because I haven't had as much experience with other solutions as with REST. I am curious about Thrift and Protocol Buffers. I have worked once on a project migrating from REST to Protocol Buffers for an internal API and it noticeably improved performance, but code complexity remained more or less the same.

<comment><USER45> > Protocol Buffers

Well, REST is architecture. Protocol Buffers are (de/)serialization.

I've tried it before (& although it has the properties I like[language agnostic schema definition..]), it was finicky to get working with of one the biggest IDEs out there(IntelliJ IDEA)

Also, it doesn't support Kotlin yet.(Java interop only option)

The only place I can see Protocol Buffers being useful is inside Google..cos it was a pretty crappy dev experience.

And I would be pretty confident in saying that not many Googlers/ex-Googlers outside Google use it. Cos if they did, somebody would make the dev experience much much better.

<comment><USER46> I use protobuf at work all the time (not google) and prefer them over almost all other serialization formats. To be fair, I mainly work in Scala, C# and JavaScript where great implementations exist. In the case of Scala, IntelliJ just needs to know that the generated source files are just that and then it "just works" for me

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It turns out that schema-first design is useful. It turns out that having a cross-platform industry standard for such schemas is useful.

What developers didn't like about SOAP aren't necessarily the features, it's all the XML.

<comment><USER48> XML is great, allows lots of tools to be used.

<comment><USER49> Ahh, to be young and naive.

Decades of horrific developer pain disagree with you. The "tools@ all have different ideas of what is correct, good style, the right name spacing and encodings...

<comment><USER48> I have been coding since the mid-80's.

Feels refreshing to be called young.

Just this week I was having the pleasure of using XSD schema validation to ensure files aren't corrupted.

<comment><USER49> We're about the same age. How is it that you've not experienced the same horrible almost-but-not-quite interoperability messes with XML and SOAP that I have over the last 20 years?

Do you love ASN.1 as well?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Man, it's almost like representational state transfer and remote procedure calls are two different things, and sometime your service does fine with the simpler one of those, and other times your service needs finer-grained controls.

But if we were thinking critically about how these protocols differed then we couldn't write an entertaining polemic, right?

</comment><comment><USER51> Rest is not an RPC protocol. If you need RPC you should use an RPC protocol. Rest is not universally applicable. The verbs don't map well to anything beyond simple CRUD operations. If you want to do something that isn't one of those operations it is going to be painful.

You can get all the benefits of the plain text serializataion by using json or even xml as the payload serialization format with a much richer set of verbs. You can even use HTTP as the lower level protocol if you want and gain all the benefits that that gives you.

Most of the pain people experience is when they try to use REST when they need an RPC protocol instead.

</comment><comment><USER52> POST represents a non-idempotent operation. The other HTTP verbs (GET, PUT, PATCH etc) are idempotent. The awkwardness surrounding PUT/PATCH stems from the need to ensure that those requests remain idempotent.

Nothing bothers me more than an idempotent request (e.g. a search query) using POST. If you design your API starting with "what should happen if the client makes this request multiple times?", then it becomes much easier to model with HTTP.

HTTP 401 Unauthorized actually means Unauthenticated. 403 Forbidden actually means Unauthorized. Yeah, it is a bit of a mess but the referer header is misspelt so what can you do.

<comment><USER24> Can I send a large request body with a GET? That's usually the reason I end up with POSTs.

<comment><USER53> > Can I send a large request body with a GET?

Why not?

<comment><USER54> HTTP server following the spec can omit the body from a GET request.

<comment><USER55> I'd love to see a document defining this. I could not find such to the date.

<comment><USER53> RFC 2616 §4.3 ([https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-4.3](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-4.3)):

 _if the request method does not include defined semantics for an entity-body, then the message-body SHOULD be ignored when handling the request._

Now, RFC 2616 is obsolete, and I couldn't find such explicit wording in the superseding RFC 7231. But §4.3.1 ([https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.1](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.1)) says:

 _A payload within a GET request message has no defined semantics; sending a payload body on a GET request might cause some existing implementations to reject the request._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Yet another discussion where people talk past each other because everybody means different things by "REST". It certainly is not the "REpresentational State Transfer" as invented originally.

<comment><USER20> Now why does everybody mean different things by "REST"? Maybe because the idea "REpresentational State Transfer" was never that clear from the start.

So that's some common ground. It's a bad idea.

<comment><USER56> It is hard to evaluate an idea without being tied to an implementation. How would you evaluate Monads as an idea without talking about Haskell?

The primary problem with REST is that most people learn it by example. Then they believe it is about web services returning JSON or about pretty URLs. It is not.

<comment><USER31> I hate working with pedantic programmers who chastise you for using the wrong http method or not formatting url's correctly because it's not restful, and then few years later jump onto some new tech, like graphql or something else, and then evangelizing the new religion. That's how some "senior" devs maintain their importance, using this esoteric knowledge to keep lesser programmers out. And if you try to catch up, you're playing a fool's game, by the time you learn all the peculiarities of their interpretation of "RESTfull", they have already jumped to GraphQL. Same for React (remember this one - <USER2> (HTML) and logic (JS) should not mix!_?), but now that we've switched from backbone to react, suddenly it's ok. It also applied to random methodologies like agile, scrum etc. A lot of cargo-culting, and not a lot of actual engineering.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> REST is like Agile. Almost everyone who claims to do it only kind of do it, and those who really do it get all wrapped up in the theology of it and turn it into an unworkable mess.

</comment><comment><USER58> Personally, I don't care about REST, I never did. However this made me giggle:

> " _REST offers better compatibility. How so? Why do so many REST webservices > have " /v2/" or "/v3/" in their base URLs then? Backwards and forward > compatible APIs are not hard to achieve, with high level languages, as long > as simple rules are followed when adding/deprecating parameters. As far as I > know, REST doesn't bring anything new on the subject._"

The author has a serious misunderstanding about what backwards compatibility or lack thereof means.

That APIs end up with "/v2" and "/v3" in their endpoints, that's absolutely the right approach for backwards compatibility, as long as the previous version of the API stays online and continues to be supported.

Backwards incompatible evolution means _breakage_. No matter what features you like to add or change, by introducing backwards incompatible changes you're going to _break people 's software_ and that's never a good thing.

The author is also naive in thinking that there can exist " _simple rules for deprecating parameters_ ". There's no such thing. Nobody pays attention to your service announcements or policies unless their software breaks.

Also "high level programming languages" have absolutely nothing to say on this matter. Yes, it's simpler to update a library that breaks compatibility within a statically typed language, but that will still come after the software breaks due to the network protocol being changed, implies active maintenance with associated costs and mainstream languages have no facilities to efficiently describe network level protocols.

</comment><comment> lf-non What are the best options for building JSON RPC client/server in javascript ?

Essentially I am looking at a Node.js based server and Browser based client as of now but cross language compatibility would be nice to have.

gRPC pure javascript client [3] is labelled as "incomplete and experimental".

axon [4] looks interesting but seems to have received no activity in almost a year. I am also slightly skeptical of adopting a tj project given his departure from Node community.

Jayson [1] was the only one I could find in the search results [2] which is actively maintained and well documented.

\--

[1] [https://github.com/tedeh/jayson](https://github.com/tedeh/jayson)

[2] [https://npms.io/search?q=rpc](https://npms.io/search?q=rpc)

[3] [https://github.com/grpc/grpc-node#pure-javascript- client](https://github.com/grpc/grpc-node#pure-javascript-client)

[4] [https://github.com/tj/axon](https://github.com/tj/axon)

</comment><comment><USER59> Solution? [https://grpc.io](https://grpc.io)

<comment><USER60> For internal services communication, gRPC is a better option. For backend to web frontend, I will keep REST for a while although is tempting to have a unified system. For example this: [https://improbable.io/games/blog/grpc-web- moving-past-restjs...](https://improbable.io/games/blog/grpc-web-moving-past- restjson-towards-type-safe-web-apis)

<comment><USER61> I'm currently developing a product using gRPC-Web as an interface between our client and server-side code. It's very pleasant to work with, especially when using TypeScript on the client side.

Oh, and for those who want to be able to query APIs from the command line without prior knowledge, the following works if you have reflection enabled on your gRPC server:

        q3k@anathema ~ $ alias grpc="docker run --rm -it --net=host returnpath/grpc_cli"
        q3k@anathema ~ $ grpc ls 127.0.0.1:50051
        helloworld.Greeter
        grpc.reflection.v1alpha.ServerReflection
        q3k@anathema ~ $ grpc ls -l 127.0.0.1:50051 helloworld.Greeter
        filename: helloworld.proto
        package: helloworld;
        service Greeter {
          rpc SayHello(helloworld.HelloRequest) returns (helloworld.HelloReply) {}
        }
        q3k@anathema ~ $ grpc type 127.0.0.1:50051 helloworld.HelloRequest
        message HelloRequest {
          optional string name = 1[json_name = "name"];
        }
        q3k@anathema ~ $ grpc call 127.0.0.1:50051 helloworld.Greeter.SayHello 'name: "gRPC World"'
        connecting to 127.0.0.1:50051
        Rpc succeeded with OK status
        Response:
         message: "Hello gRPC World"

<comment><USER18> gPRC is nice... my only two gripes are that it isn't quite as debuggable as JSON, it's often overkill, and because it moves so fast (right now) I've seen updates introduce real errors into the protocol (they are fixed in a few days, but when they occur it's a terror to debug).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> SOAP also has other stuff : proper handling of binary (MTOM), WSDL/XSD contracts are _enforced_ and XSD is a very powerful, standardized language to express contract which in turn allow you to share the contract. When you're working across organisation/institution borders that's very helpful. REST is not there yet. If I had to communicate each little gotchas of my REST API each time, that'd be really tough.

So for me the power of SOAP is how it helps me to share interface contracts in clear, precise ways.

Moreover, SOAP also have the WS-I profiles for security related stuff and that is quite advanced too.

SOAP is nice in enterprise setting I guess.

</comment><comment><USER63> My understanding is that RESTful is good for public WEB APIs, however for tightly-coupled systems the best was SOAP/Xmlrpc.

Nowadays the best middle ground probably should a SOAP-like wrapper for JSONRPC(instead of XMLRPC), i.e.using JSONRPC as the payload instead of XML, does such thing exist?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAPjr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAPjr) was one effort to combine SOAP with JSONRPC, but seems not getting traction.

So, SOAP/XML too verbose, RESTful not good for tightly-coupled systems, what other options do we have, ideally have something like SOAP but using JSONRPC?

</comment><comment><USER64> You manage both dismiss HATEOAS for lack of discoverability and then claim there's no automatically generateable client? If I claimed a WSDL was "discoverability for SOAP", would that make the purpose of HATEOAS clear?

</comment><comment><USER65> I find REST APIs a bit annoying, primarily because of caching behaviour. For example, if I have a GET on a list of resources and then PATCH a particular resource from the list, the browser will still keep the old list in cache and not update (with the newly patched resource) till the cache expires. For this reason, I just use my own json APIs using POST requests (to bypass the cache) with some application specific caching in the browser via indexedDB - it's not that much more work, but the experience is significantly better for the user.

<comment><USER66> HTTP caching behavior is extremely flexible. You could use must-revalidate with ETag or If-Modified-Since caching.

<comment><USER65> True, but the whole process becomes a bit convoluted. I feel it's easier to just stay away from HTTP caching where possible.

<comment><USER66> It's always possible.

It's just not always performant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I agree with the article. Fortunately, REST is dead. I'm fully confident that in 5 years, newcomers to web development will simply learn GraphQL.

I realize that's a strident statement, but I really believe that.

It is basically a restrictive implementation of RPC, which captures the reality that clients often need to ask for follow up data based on the result of a query. There are a couple needs that don't have fully baked solutions yet, but it's already extremely handy. It reminds me of what BEM did for taking the decision fatigue out of writing CSS.

<comment><USER68> > newcomers to web development will simply learn GraphQL.

I doubt it. Newcomers are supposed to learn HTTP. When one knows HTTP, one mostly knows REST.

GraphQL is not a replacement for REST, it's a query language on top of REST. It's a useful tool to fetch object graphs but REST is not going away anytime soon. GraphQL doesn't deal with security, caching and other issues solved with REST for instance. GraphQL also pushes a lot of complexity toward both the server and the client. On the server,it's an ORM on top of whatever ORM developers are already using.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> REST can be as simple as you want it to as verbose and rigid as you want it. Defining an API has certain public expectations such as request/response and basic HTTP status codes, but again can be easy or more detailed. There are RESTafarian and pragmatic ways to implement REST APIs.

Much of the problem of any tech becomes that engineers/developers are supposed to make complex things simple but instead sometimes make simple things more complex because it seems smarter. Complexity is needed only enough to make it simple to interface with and consume. REST is an example of web services done right and more simple compared to SOAP which was supposed to be the Simple Object Access Protocol but they forgot the simple part and just kept adding layers.

APIs should be easy to work with and as non changing as possible in the public signatures and routes/data/configs or else versioning should come in on major changes which should be handled wisely. Sometimes that is RESTafarian or pragmatic, sometimes more HTTPRPC, sometimes that means schemas for consumption, sometimes pretty urls, sometimes ids and name blurbs, sometimes responses wrapped in app messages/wrappers, sometimes directly on HTTP(s) response bodies, and it all depends on if it is public or private and if you control both endpoints, the clients and business needs.

</comment><comment><USER70> So my problem is that REST stuff is usually a horrible mess with lots of special-casing, while SOAP gets ridiculously leaky and requires very tight coupling and lots of tooling to allow servers or clients to implement it cleanly, because the envelope formats etc. are really complex. If you've got something which can consume the WSDL and generate client code then you're good - provided it has a sane connection handler etc. etc. etc. because usually in my experience they then try to do too much for you and are very vague about what that actually is.

Needs something else. Preferably something already invented. My employer has a SOAP API which is very annoying, written in a framework that lets us throw any exception we like back to the clients, thus exposing internal details by accident in an interface which we then can't change because people might be processing those exception names to understand the errors they're getting when their requests aren't valid. This is where the idea of RPC needs a gatekeeper (oh for a framework-level option to say "you can only throw exceptions to the client which are in this namespace" or maybe "only ones which derive from an class in this namespace").

We also have a REST API, which is reasonably good at hitting the RESTful ideas, but not great everywhere because yup, there's that ambiguity in the conceptual framework itself.

There's also a lot of code involved in actually consuming the thing.

I need to read up on alternatives. But our customers aren't going to change any time soon!

</comment><comment><USER71> Anyone have much experience with gRPC? We are using Swagger/jsonschema for our REST APIs and it's quite the nightmare in terms of development cost. IMO, writing schemas in a self-describing "language" like JSON should be a crime; it's too verbose and easy to make mistakes. At run time it gets bad because you need to unmarshal the JSON objects into Python classes which can be too much overhead for large request or response sizes.

</comment><comment><USER72> XMLRPC with WSDL was bad enough that I only had to use it once. We migrated WSDL stack to REST (2007-8), which was an improvement, but it was fraught with a fat clients for each language integration to uniformly handle SSO authorization and other sundries.

Has the author considered something built upon Protocol Buffers, which have can have reasonable versioning semantics and is portable and supports status code canonicalization, like gRPC?

<comment><USER73> What was wrong with WSDL? I also only used it just once or so, but found it to be transparent. Generated a client (set of functions) for two languages and never touched the WSDL or SOAP directly afterwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> person with head hitting desk: but x has problems.

tech industry: you're not doing x right.

everything should be a suggestion to consider not a rule. otherwise it's just dogma.

</comment><comment> d--b REST and SOAP are in fact the exact opposite.

SOAP was designed to be a "fit all cases" solution. and that turned out to be an over complicated over engineered solution that pretty much everybody hated.

REST grew organically from people using HTTP and liking it and thinking "hey I could actually make an API from http calls and that would be pretty neat". Sure it's not great for a lot of cases, but it gets the job done and is the natural way to query a server with a browser. So I f I can make a website and the API at the same time, then that's that much less work for me.

This is exactly the same type of rant we get about node.js, electron or Python. When people chose these technologies they know it's crap. Writing a server in an interpreted, dynamically typed language is pretty dumb. Running a desktop app as a local web service rendering in an embedded browser is somewhat less than ideal. And using one of the least efficient language for data processing is somewhat counter intuitive...

The point is: people like working with these. Get over it.

</comment><comment><USER75> REST in many ways is just a way to structure how you work over HTTP. Because HTTP is _huge_ and allows you a ton of stuff out of the box if done properly. See this HTTP decision diagram: [https://raw.githubusercontent.com/for- GET/http-decision-diag...](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/for-GET/http- decision-diagram/master/httpdd.png) and the documentation for it: [https://github.com/for-GET/http-decision- diagram/tree/master...](https://github.com/for-GET/http-decision- diagram/tree/master/doc)

Any structured approach is difficult and prone to errors. People who so often jump onto the REST bandwagon often have poor to no understanding of what REST is, of what HTTP is, and how it all works.

</comment><comment><USER76> Comparing REST to SOAP, is to me like comparing HTML to SASS/LESS.

SOAP had so many flaws, no need to repeat. But the fact that you could not trust that SOAP software created using Microsoft software would work with something created with Java software was a disaster. Sometimes I ended up building custom SOAP libraries to connect with the other services. It was promised to solve all our problems, but ended up creating more.

REST is not a "standard" library, it is just a basic guideline on how to use the HTTP protocol "out of the box".

What the author seems to be looking for, is one hammer to fix all problems.

If you are spending too much time writing REST services, maybe your frameworks are flawed, you could be automating more or your interface is too complex?

<comment><USER77> Why did SOAP not work between MS and Java?

<comment><USER78> SOAP is a very complicated spec, and intended to be used to automatically generate bindings in whatever language you're using base in the service definition fine (WSDL). It's not intended to be human-readable.

So to provide a SOAP framework you need to not only provide all the plumbing for dealing with the actual messages, but all the rolling to auto-generate the client library for an API. The whole mechanism is very complex and there were lots of places where the spec was not specific enough, or the implementations had slightly different opinions about interpretation.

Then on top of that, Microsoft for a good while purposefully deviated from the spec to provide "enhancements" that other implementations had to reverse engineer to be compatible.

Then on to of _that_ you had a whole raft of extensions to the spec like WS- Security, WS-Reliability, and (ironically for a "standard") WS- Interoperability. The chances that all of those specific extensions worked across different implementations was even more remote.

So, there were two big reasons in my opinion, that SOAP failed and REST shined:

1\. The only way you could really trust that your SOAP client would generate compatible bindings for an API is if you wrote the API. This defeats the purpose of having public APIs. The author's complaint about REST implementation taking hours when his known tools take minutes rings hollow to me because I've spent weeks trying to get two simple SOAP systems communicating.

2\. SOAP reinvents the wheel in a much more complicated fashion. Mant of those WS-* extensions were written to provide things that you already get if you embrace the existing networking stack (TCP/IP, HTTP, etc.). SOAP was trying to be transport-agnostic, so it ignored the existing stack and had to reinvent most of it itself. One of the key principles of REST is to embrace HTTP and let the existing system do with for you.

For example, SOAP used POST requests for _everything._ So all the tools that work with HTTP requests on the wire have to be rewritten to understand SOAP semantics instead of just looking at the request method.

Most of the use-cases in practice of WS-Security is covered by TLS/SSL. Theoretically WS-Security provides more flexibility, and can handle use-cases that TLS/SSL can't, but in practice it leads to over-complicated and less- secure systems.

WS-Reliability exists because you might use SOAP over something that isn't TCP. Most of the guarantees WS-Reliability gives you could have gotten for free if you entrance TCP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> While I generally like transparent systems as RPC pretends to be one, I have do not like unreliable systems. As network communication by its nature is very unreliable, it is even worse when some magic technology tries to hide that unreliability and calls it transparent. So much for RPC.

Yes, RESTful is not always as simple as it seems at its first glance. But that articles doesn't suggest anything helpful besides arguing why RESTful implementations are difficult. So if someone going to write the next 'REST is the new SOAP' article please provide some sane alternative idea (doesn't have to be a finished implementation).

</comment><comment><USER80> Both Google and Microsoft have published their API design guidelines, which are very much RESTful. Both companies have applied their guidelines to broader set of products at very large scale. At least, we have not seen alternatives that would be applicable or scalable to companies at Google or Microsoft scale.

API design is like UI design or car design or clothes design. It is a form of craft, which does take time and skills. API design is for customers to have best experience, it was never meant to save time or work for the designers.

Disclosure: contributor of Google API Design Guide.

<comment><USER12> Except those carefully designed URLs are often behind a client side RPC library. So what was the point of doing it REST style in the first place?

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> > _You want to use PUT to update your resource? OK, but some Holy > Specifications state that the data input has to be a "complete resource", > i.e follow the same schema as the corresponding GET output._

If you were working in a strongly typed language with RPC calls, you would see the same problems, or symptoms thereof. For example, if you had the two RPC calls storeFoo and retrieveFoo, you'd expect them to both take Foo objects, no? Something like,

      storeFoo(name: String, foo: Foo)
      retrieveFoo(name: String) -> Foo

and PUT/GET in HTTP yearns for the same dichotomy.

> _So what do you do with the numerous read-only parameters returned by GET > (creation time, last update time, server-generated token…)? You omit them > and violate the PUT principles?_

Yes, and just call it POST, since it's no longer symmetric and violates PUT principles. REST has nothing against POST. Again, this problem would be reflected similarly in RPC:

      storeFoo(name: String, foo: PartialFoo)
      retrieveFoo(name: String) -> Foo

(or perhaps storeFoo ignores some fields on Foo, etc.)

> _creation time_

This is a fantastic example, because I actually had this problem w/ a non- RESTful API. We took a generic sort of "create record" and recorded the current time as the "start" time. The problem was when the device lost network connectivity (which was essentially always, just a matter of "how bad _is_ the latency): the creation of the record would lag, sometimes by _hours_ , and the eventual "creation time" it was tagged with was _wrong_. We should have trusted the device, because it knew much better than the server when the actual record was created.

Now, this isn't going to be the case all the time; sometimes you literally want just the time the DB INSERT statement happened, and that's fine.

> _Pick your poison, REST clearly has no clue what a read-only attribute it_

POST a "create" request, GET has the newly created fields. Symmetric PUT/GET is nice, but show me where in HTTP it is recorded as an absolute.

> _Meanwhile, a GET is dangerously supposed to return the password (or credit > card number)_

Not only does REST not dictate this, nobody in their right mind should do this. GETs just return the resource. What that resource is, what data is represented — that's up to you in HTTP just as it is in RPC.

> _lots of resource parameters are deeply linked or mutually exclusive(ex. > it's either credit card OR paypal token, in a user's billing info)_

If your request looks like,

      "paypal_token": ...
      "credit_card": ...

Then your RPC would look like,

      struct PaymentDetails {
        paypal_token: ...
        credit_card: ...
      }

      updatePaymentDetails(..., new_details: PaymentDetails)

and you're in the same hot water, again, just with RPC. If your type system allows it, you can make them mutually exclusive there, perhaps something like,

      enum PaymentDetails {
        Paypal(token),
        CreditCard(card_number),
      }

but then, that cleanly translates back into a RESTful API's information too. Now, JSON is typically used, and it doesn't really expose a real sum type, which is a shame. You can work around it w/ something like,

      "payment_details": {
        "type": "paypal",
        "token": ...,
      }

and it works well enough. If you can't express it in the type system (in _either_ RPC or REST) then you have to do some validation, but that's true regardless of whether RPC or REST is in use.

> _you'd violate specs once more: PATCH is not supposed to send a bunch of > fields to be overridden_

…how is that a violation of the spec?

> _The PATCH method requests that a set of changes described in the request > entity be applied to the resource_

> _With PATCH, however, the enclosed entity contains a set of instructions > describing how a resource currently residing on the origin server should be > modified to produce a new version._

That's exactly what sending a subset of fields _is_. It's an adhoc new media type describing a set of changes.

> _So here you go again, take your paperboard and your coffee mug, you'll have > to specify how to express these instructions, and their semantics._

No more than you would an RPC call, AFAICT. E.g.,

      updateFoo(
        field_a_new_value: Optional<...>,
        field_b_new_value: Optional<...>,
      )

_etc._ is really no different.

> _OK, but I hope you don't need to provide substantial context data; like a > PDF scan of the termination request from the user._

If it's not a simple "delete this thing", that's fine. POST is still there.

> * For exemple, lots of developers use PUT to create a resource directly on > its final URL (/myresourcebase/myresourceid), whereas the "good way" of > doing it is to POST on a parent URL (/myresourcebase), and let the server > indicate, with an HTTP redirection, the new resource's URL.*

Either is fine.

> _Using "HTTP 401 Unauthorized" when a user doesn't have access credentials > to a third-party service sounds acceptable, doesn't it? However, if an ajax > call in your Safari browser gets this error code, it'll startle your end > customer with a very unexpected password prompt._

 _Only_ if you accept Basic authentication, and indicate that in your headers. It is, I agree, somewhat unfortunate that the browsers do not let you control this behavior. I don't feel that this is an issue for many people these days. (If you're using something like a JWT, you're not going to hit this, since you'll likely be using something like Bearer for an authentication scheme.)

> _Or you'll shamelessly return "HTTP 400 Bad Request" for all functional > errors, and then invent your own clunky error format, with booleans, integer > codes, slugs, and translated messages stuffed into an arbitrary payload._

Would you not need to stuff that information into some form of error or exception type in the RPC world? (The error "code" might be standardized, e.g., JSONRPC does this, but the associated data cannot be.) But unless you clearly fall into one of the predefined categories, and even if you _do_ , it doesn't hurt to settle on a standard "error" type/format.

REST is about talking about the resources, about defining formats / objects that clearly indicate whatever state/data they represent. For most people, this is "just" going to be a JSON document, but all too often you see the same _concept_ or state expressed five different ways in not-RESTful APIs. For example, a ZIP code that is sometimes just a string, sometimes a {"zip_code": "12345} sometimes a {"zip": 12345}; the author here is failing to understand that a common type exists, and that he should form an actual format around it that he can refer to globally (this field is a _zip_ — and we defined that _here_ and we know it always looks the same, always.)

Frankly, I feel like most of that issue is from JavaScript and JSON, since both discourage any form of static typing of data, and humans naturally just get the immediate job done, but at the cost of having the same concept expressed six different ways.

> _Or, well, yes, actually it remember its authentication session, its access > permissions… but it's stateless, nonetheless. Or more precisely, just as > stateless as any HTTP-based protocol, like simple RPC mentioned previously._

This isn't what "stateless" refers to. It's _stateless_ in that the requests are (generally speaking) independent of each other. One might need authentication, and you might have to get that somewhere, and that might need a request, yes. Store data of course changes the state of the server. But you can disconnect and reconnect and reissue that next request without caring.

> _The split of data between "resources", each instance on its own endpoint, > naturally leads to the N+1 Query problem._

It can, but again, doesn't need to, and is no more susceptible to this than an RPC API. In an RPC API, you still need to determine what to expose, and how many API calls and round trips that will require…

> _"The client does not need any prior knowledge of the service in order to > use it". This is by far my favourite quote. I've found it numerous times, > under different forms, especially when the buzzword HATEOAS lurked around;_

I feel like this was expressed by Fieldings to encapsulate two ideas:

* You can push code, on demand.

* You can refer to associated resources, or even state transitions, via hyperlinks.

Most supposedly (but not really) RESTful APIs do neither, so it's entirely a moot point. I think people _way_ over read this to mean _absolutely_ no prior knowledge, whereas Fieldings intended it to mean something closer to "only knowledge of the media types being returned", which is actually quite a bit of prior knowledge. But the two bullets above still allow you to encode a considerable amount of flexibility into an API, considerably more than something that ignores those points.

Frankly, I feel like if you start with an RPC protocol, you'll eventually want some stuff: caching. Retries would be nice, but you need to know if you _can_ retry the operation. Metadata (headers). Partial requests. Pagination. Can you encode all of this with RPC protocols? Absolutely! But it comes up so often, it would be nice to standardize it, and many of these things (caching, pagination, range requests) get a lot easier if you stop talking about operations and start talking about the data (resources) being operated on, which is — to me — the big "ah ha!" of HTTP, and why HTTP is what it is today. That is, HTTP _is_ a highly evolved RPC protocol.

</comment><comment><USER82> We now recently had to design an internal system to manage student data. We went with REST and the first thing I did is to document all API-s in a repository using Swagger.

It's not really true that there are no standards, they defined Open API, it has a nice browser based editor to update the YAML files and it's easy to read an maintain.

All changes to the API-s are done via pull requests, so changes are reviewed.

The HTTP verb is also a non issue, there's 4... FOUR that you need to match with CRUD. Is that hard? Even if it is, read the docs.

</comment><comment><USER83> Well of course comparing state of the art jsonrpc with spaghetti rest will give jsonrpc a headstart

In truth the error is in the premise "we switched rest because everyone's doing it/is the way webservices are developed now"

Well, no, and that's the issue with most "rest" api that actually are jsonrpc with html verbs (and ignoring that using json for rest is impossible to begin with): they were written to hit a bullet point on a feature list

</comment><comment><USER84> I agree with almost every point of this article. REST is terrible. The only thing I don't agree is that SOAP is bad. Web services are awesome if used with some limitations. Major platforms have autogeneration, so you are spending zero time to build a robust API. I've yet to see anything as simple and fast as Web services. I think that world migrating to REST is a huge mistake.

</comment><comment><USER85> I'm fine with REST as a transport mechanism though the resource overload constraint (Swagger) is the sort of thing that might make me dump it.

If I want to overload get with a custom search end point, I should be able to do that without someone's idea of a perfect resource definition telling me I'm wrong.

This is the sort of thing that made me remove WCF from my resume.

Simple and flexible. This should be any standards mantra.

</comment><comment><USER86> Here's the secret of REST: it's all about the _information_ and definitely _not_ verbs.

The author begins by confusing HTTP with REST. I understand that HTTP is probably the most common protocol for implementing RESTful architectures, but since the author is devoting so much time to trashing REST, they ought to correctly make this distinction. Hence, the complaint that HTTP verbs aren't adequate to express certain problems isn't a critique of REST, it's a critique of HTTP. This problem is present throughout the entire article.

Then, the author complains about the specifications of REST (i.e. "What a scoop in the software world" with respect to the client/server architecture). Not all applications are well-suite to client/server architectures -- those applications are not well-suited for REST. Some principles of any architecture may seem simple, but I don't think that's an inherit problem.

The author really revealed their ignorance with:

        >Rest is awesome, because it is STATELESS. Yes there is
        >probably a huge database behind the webservice, but it doesn't
        >remember the state of the client. Or, well, yes, actually it
        >remember its authentication session, its access permissions…
        >but it's stateless, nonetheless.

REST is not stateless, RESTful communication is. This just means that each request from the client contains the information necessary to create an appropriate response -- and that this is possible for all resources. That implies that issuing temporary authentication tokens is _not_ RESTful, since an initial authentication request is required to create a second "meaningful" request. This is a desirable trait for many classes of applications.

However, all of this being said, the proposition 'REST is sometimes used inappropriately' is true, and it is interesting and constructive to identify situations where REST is being used inappropriately. It isn't clear to me that RPC calls are appropriate in all (or even most) places REST is used.

Rants like the one in this article are really toxic, simply because they make people think this is an acceptable way to approach technological problems. What would actually be useful is to:

* identify and find examples of misuses of REST

* try to create a taxonomy of REST abuses and recommendations for those scenarios

</comment><comment><USER87> I think REST's ambiguity and arbitrary nature is a real thing for those that are opinionated. (not me so much) Strange but JSON RPC did away with those types of arguments but wasn't used maybe because the name sounds complicated (two acronyms too much)? Now we have GraphQL that seems to be the best answer in ease of use of consumption and design. Rest easy.

</comment><comment><USER88> 'Impedance mismatch' strikes again.

</comment><comment><USER89> It's a funny feeling to read such an in depth article on the perils of REST without a single mention of GraphQL...

</comment><comment><USER90> I wonder when the next article titled:

"GraphQL is the new REST"

or

"<Insert Tech Here> is the new <Old Tech Here>"

will hit top of HackerNews.

</comment><comment><USER91> The author seems confused between 401 (not logged in) and 403 (user doesn't have permission).

<comment><USER8> Agreed: 401 is for authentication and 403 for authorization.

Yet the official name for 401 is 401 UNAUTHORIZED.

So even the very basics of REST and HTTP are confusingly or ambiguously defined.

<comment><USER92> The old spec, [https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html](https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html), seems to say that 401 can mean either unauthenticated or unauthorized. If you haven't signed in, it means unauthenticated. If you have signed in, then it means unauthorized. Were the status codes written before authenticate and authorize had the narrow meanings of today?

Meanwhile, 403 seems to be reserved for when the server just generally doesn't want to do what you're asking it to do. It may tell you, it may not, it doesn't have to tell you, so there. "Authorization will not help..."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> REST is freedom (with all its downsides when you can do what you want), SOAP is like military (with all its strong rules).

It's like comparing a micro web framework with a full web framework.

I think it always depends what you want to do in which scale with REST. What's great for a single hobby developer would be bad for a big world wide corporation.

If you really want more rules, more restrictions and more boundaries for 100 of developers working on your project you should definitely look on something build on top of it (graphql, odata) or one of the replacement architectures like grpc if you have high demands in your infrastructure.

For me as a developer I'm always happy when things are not overcomplicated at the beginning, but some developers like more structure down the road. At the end you need to get stuff done and I think it's better to educate yourself about REST in general than some big other framework which you need to implement somehow everywhere.

<comment><USER94> This is really tangential, sorry, but I'd like to mention that the (US) military is strongly opinionated in a relatively small number of ways. Additionally, the rules are self-enforced throughout most of its structure, and almost none of the rules being broken will cause the system or its components to fail. The US military is actually incredibly flexible, because the (mostly) self-enforced strong opinions inform the decisions of subsets of the military all the way down to the individual level, allowing each component to be effective almost regardless of the health of the rest of the system. SOAP was _incredibly_ inflexible. I think perhaps a better analogy would be to compare SOAP to some defense contractors, where things _must_ work a certain way, or they grind to a halt and become very expensive to debug and triage. Also, incidentally, I'm interested to hear about your experiences with gRPC. I have just played with it, but it sounds like you had some issues scaling with it? Or didn't like it so much? I much prefer REST because of its inherent flexibility, as you do, but I am interested to hear from people who scaled with gRPC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER95> I did REST for years and now people are all about CQRS/ES.

"Make CRUD with REST, keep it simple!"

"No app is CRUD, it's an illusion! Model your events all the way!"

Well, guess the pendulum will someday stay somewhere in the middle?

<comment><USER96> I think "the middle" is chopping it the "sourcing" part, which is like 90% of the tricky overhead and philosophical purity.

Just have CQRS with events as a short-term communication mechanism.

<comment><USER95> Tricky overhead?

Isn't the ES part what makes these systems superior in the first place, because you can restore any state of the past?

<comment><USER96> It's only easy if the system is built once and never changes.

For example, does an "item sold" event from 8 years ago has the same data fields and fundamentally _mean_ the same thing with the same outcomes, compared to the ones recorded today?

If not, you've got to start talking about stuff like writing multiple versions of code to play-back multiple versions of events slightly differently. Or at least have two versions in place, while some background process "upgrades" the old events.

And that's assuming you can even imagine a good way to re-express old obsolete behavior into a direct modern equivalent.

In contrast, I'm suggesting a mutable model which emits events. The events are used for triggering current logic, and are kept primarily for auditing/data- mining proposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> It seems to me REST offers no real advantages over other specifications/protocols from a server side perspective. And the reason for REST proliferation has been about the rise of SPA JS frameworks.

</comment><comment><USER98> I'll be honest and say I refuse to read this based on its title. I've used SOAP somewhat recently. It's shittier than anything I've done in programming and I've done plenty of PHP 5 stuff. There's so much inane stuff in SOAP, and it's rare that a SOAP client in one language will work properly with a SOAP server in another.

Yes, it's HTTP-based APIs. But they've perverted the HTTP spec with weird extensions like SOAP attachments. So good luck doing SOAP operations by hand.

Not to mention it's insanely poorly specified. For example, SOAP requests can be GET or POST but most things only support using POST anyways. Why not specify it! God only knows.

I really hate SOAP a lot. Comparing it to REST for some Medium rant makes me irrationally angry.

<comment><USER99> You should read it. The title is misleading. I think the author proposes that REST is the new (failed) SOAP.

<comment><USER98> I'm remaining firmly unconvinced.

REST is an anti-standard. It doesn't tell you what to do, it just gives you some guidelines of sorts. And honestly, you don't even have to follow them - the spirit of REST is in simple JSON + HTTP-based operations.

As an example, this?

        createAccount(username, contact_email, password) -> account_id
        addSubscription(account_id, subscription_type) -> subscription_id
        sendActivationReminderEmail(account_id) -> null
        cancelSubscription(subscription_id, reason, immediate=True) -> null
        getAccountDetails(account_id) -> {full data tree}

Could be this:

        POST /accounts/ {username, contact_email, password} -> {account_id}
        POST /accounts/:account_id/subscriptions/ {subscription_type} -> {subscription_id}
        POST /accounts/:account_id/send_activation_reminder_email/ -> {}
        DELETE /accounts/:account_id/subscriptions/:subscription_id/ {reason, immediate} -> {}
        GET /accounts/:account_id/ -> {full data tree}

...Or an unending number of other interpretations. You can, for example, flatten the tree and put `/subscriptions/` at the root. Doesn't matter. It isn't that ridiculously hard to understand or formulate.

And if you want, you can make everything perfectly RESTful and make everything a resource. Kubernetes and its API objects concept are great examples. Deploying services with POST/PATCH/PUT? Just add some layers of abstraction.

Having REST bindings for many languages is not a ridiculous thing to do either. If your API is huge, autogenerate it somehow. Swagger/OpenAPI exists. Or, maybe don't make bindings at all. If I wanted to write payment handling code for Stripe, I'd feel no hesitation doing it by making the HTTP requests directly. It's not hard or scary. Them having rich, quality libraries for many languages is a marketing decision, and a damn good one in my opinion. It does things that no cross-language abstraction layer could to make life as simple as possible.

Honestly, people can do whatever they want, but I genuinely do not get why REST-based services are so bad. Honestly, if anything is difficult nowadays, it's authentication. I'm a big fan of OAuth2, but there's a thing that isn't fun to write client libraries for _.

(_I have. The problem isn't that it's complicated; the problem is that nobody implements it right. Google's OIDC implementation has all kinds of bugs. Losing scopes on refresh is incredibly annoying.)

<comment><USER100> > Or an unending number of other interpretations

and when someone joins the team and raises endless arguments with you about how what is already working isn't REST, because their interpretation is different, you have problems.

and when you have a client that insists that you're not following REST conventions because your endpoints take POST for everything and don't take actual PUT commands, and they are not going to retool their interpretation of REST to match yours, you have problems.

These problems would exist anyway - interacting with other people usually brings some problems with it - but putting things under this banner of REST implies that there is some 'right' way of doing things which contributes to the interaction problems.

Just acknowledging "hey, this could have been done 4 ways, this is the way that was chosen, deal with it" \- regardless of whether the REST acronym is involved or not - should be the way to go, but an implied 'standard' creates more hurdles.

<comment><USER98> I could say the exact same thing about RPC. API design is difficult, largely in part because programmer types often refuse to acknowledge the "design" part. REST actually improves this by providing a sane set of ideas to base your web API design off of. It only makes it worse if you want it to.

REST has plenty of nice advantages people ignore too, like for example, often with REST APIs, ACL and authentication can be handled much easier because you can use URLs as a primitive for permissions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER101> Indeed. Rest us nice for some cases but quite complex in rules. Especially if you use HATEOAS.

These days I always recommend GRPC over protobuf for inter services communication.

</comment><comment><USER102> I miss JSONRPC, and have no idea why it didn't take off the way REST did. It seems RPC and Lambda would play nicely together.

</comment><comment><USER103> I'm glad someone mentioned Toki Pona.

mi pona mute mute e toki pona. mi kin pilin e ni: jan lipu pi ni li pona all e toki lili.

</comment><comment><USER104> I think Swagger (OpenAPI) is the new SOAP.

</comment><comment><USER105> When I see articles like this, I recognize a fellow expert.

The same way JSON is better in practicum than XML, despite missing some key tooling, JSON RPC 2 is better than SOAP or REST in practicum because it was designed by someone with experience who had to actually get shit done.

Every time someone tells me that I don't get REST and links me to Fieldings dissertation, all I hear is the bleating of goats and the peals of Dunning- Kruger.

</comment><comment><USER106> Why does soap or rest matter? None solve the problem of the need of communicating with a predefined protocol.

<comment><USER106> As an industry I do think we are extremely fast of ditching old lessons learned in favor for the new shiny, which still gives the same ol' problems. We like to redress the same problems in different coats but still have the same problems at hand. We think the "new shiny" is solving the problems, just because there's yet no structure highlighting the problem. And therefore it's "nice", but it will eventually creep up on you. Also if you had a bad experience with tech X you will hate it, and disregard everything else it actually solves and does it good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER107> So for reasons unclear you tried to replace a working system with a design pattern you didn't really understand, and you were disappointed with the results? What were you hoping to get from this madness?

Honestly, REST is a great idea. Yes, people get religious about HTTP verbs and URL structures. But you don't need to. Prioritise clarity to humans above everything else, and you'll be fine for the most part.

<comment><USER108> > Honestly, REST is a great idea. Yes, people get religious about HTTP verbs > and URL structures. But you don't need to. Prioritise clarity to humans > above everything else, and you'll be fine for the most part.

I've seen this argument before (I've even made this argument before), but I'm becoming increasingly unconvinced by it. Let me explain my thinking:

1\. If there's ANYTHING that sets REST apart from a generic HTTP-and-JSON protocol, it's the focus on basing endpoints off the concept of resources and collections, and using HTTP verbs to determine the type action to be performed. (And also, possibly, internal hyperlinks, but nobody seems to actually pay attention to that part.)

2\. Depending on your application, somewhere between "some" and "most" of your API traffic doesn't deal things that easily map to resources and collections, doesn't involve actions that easily map to HTTP verbs, or both. One of the most common examples is sessions. When you log in, are you creating a session resource? Is that a sub-resource of the user resources, or an independent collection in its own right? Or are you actually retrieving a session token _from_ the user resource? When you log out, are you actually deleting that session? Or updating the session to remove its authentication?

3\. It's easy to say "prioritise clarity to humans", and I totally agree, but in that case, you'd just have a /login and /logout endpoints, you'd do a POST to the former with a valid username/password to login, and a POST to the latter to log out, the end. That's super clear, and super usable, but nothing about that is RESTful. And the same thing comes up over and over again. For every time I find myself doing simple CRUD operations on a collection of concrete resources, there's 10 times I find myself needing to do complicated, ambiguous operations on things which aren't.

4\. But if I relax and focus on making a clear, usable API, then almost by definition I have to do so by _not_ being RESTful. It's easy to say that you shouldn't get religious about HTTP verbs and URL structures (and I agree), but since HTTP verbs and URL structures is 100% of what people seem to mean by "REST" in actual practice, then...in what sense is REST a good idea? It's like drinking rum and coke without the rum...and the coke. What's left? Nothing Roy Fielding would recognise, in my view.

I'm happy to entertain the idea that REST is useful when you _are_ doing CRUD operations on simple, concrete resources (updating prices on an online store; posting comments to a blog; whatever). But in my personal experience, most people seem to view REST as the ideal way to handle making an _entire_ API, even the bits that are clearly nothing more than RPCs triggered via HTTP.

<comment><USER109> > but in that case, you'd just have a /login and /logout endpoints, you'd do a > POST to the former with a valid username/password to login, and a POST to > the latter to log out, the end. That's super clear, and super usable, but > nothing about that is RESTful.

And this is the beauty, compared to SOAP: you can mix-and-match. Make your resources as RESTful as possible (but e.g. omitting passwords/cc numbers), and implement the stuff that's _not_ resources in good ole plain-json way.

For logins there's no other choice anyway, given the tons of different ways: some are email+password, some username+password, some add a tenant parameter to the mix, some add one of the dozens of captcha solutions, some want Oauth, various 2fa schemes, ...

<comment><USER110> Came to make this exact point. Use a framework to automatically give you a solid, dependable REST api focussed purely on crud operations on your core data model. Anything weirder than that (which I don't believe will be ten times the volume for the vast majority of use cases), do in the cleanest way possible, even if that means you end up with a non-REST api wrapping a core RESTful one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER111> this inspired me to write [https://medium.com/@jfriedensreich/rest-is-just- not-for-rpc-...](https://medium.com/@jfriedensreich/rest-is-just-not-for- rpc-d5d9507ff99a)

</comment><comment><USER112> While REST is much better than the alternatives, the criticism is on point

Some people take religious discussions about REST to the extreme (usually about not being RESTful enough)

The same extremists probably never met real world problems or did some questionable quirk to solve them that they sell as true gospel.

</comment><comment><USER113> Really, I liked reading it out. I never read about this technology earlier.

</comment><comment><USER114> Nope. Rest is stateless, which means it is a form of message passing - <USER3> right thing to do (a universal design principle, like a pipeline, etc).

Soap is just a crap by a committee of idiots.

If you like this blue is new white pattern, consider Javascript is new J2EE instead.

</comment><comment><USER73> I think the most realistic and fast solution is to provide a Segger / Open API spec. As a result you get the best of both worlds: easy consumption and a schema which lets you generate clients.

</comment><comment><USER115> I am working on a SOAP service and it is a nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER116> What a waste of time that was to read.

</comment><comment><USER117> GraphQL is the new REST

<comment><USER118> I'm not sure if GraphQL will ever replace REST as REST is suitable for most of the cases. REST is easier to grasp and still have a great tools and SDKs around. I know that there are fields where GraphQL is better but in general I think REST will remain No. 1.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> Article reads like being from a crumpy snarky old age dev who lives in his XML-land filter bubble of the 1990s. Go back to XMLRPC and SOAP please. This site is getting more of these corporate old farts lately that don't want to adjust at all. I wish the time back when this site was about startup news, VCs, and new exiting things and not about whining and boring stuff.

<comment><USER120> We've asked you many times to please comment civilly and substantively, and yet you've continued to repeatedly violate the guidelines, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at email@example.com and we believe you'll start following the guidelines.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment></comment>