HornetQ REST Interface Beta-2 Released

A user requested Selector support. Follow the links and doco from:

http://jboss.org/hornetq/rest

To download, etc.  The next REST-* messaging spec will be derived from this after hornetq user feedback.

Possible iteration on avoiding duplicates

See Bill Burke’s blog for more detail.

REST-* Message Draft 5: new post and subcription protocol

I’ve made some small changes to REST-* Message Draft 5.  First is to the reliable posting of messages to a message destination.  The second is to the push model default subscription creation method.

New post-message-once protocol

Previously, the post-message-once link used the POE pattern to avoid duplicate message posting.  I asked around and it seems that the POE pattern isn’t used a lot in practice.  I’m glad because it kinda breaks the uniform interface (unsafe GET) and isn’t really consistent with the other protocols I defined.  It is also very inefficient as you have to make two round trips to post each message.  Nathan Winder, on the reststar-messaging list suggested using a one-off link generated with each message post.  Here’s how it looks:

The post-message-once link URL provided by this link is not used to actually create a message, but rather to obtain a new, one-off, URL. An empty POST should be executed on the post-message-once link. The response provides a new “create-next” link which the client can then post their message to. The link is a “one-off” URL. What that means is that is that if the client re-posts the message to the create-next URL it will receive a 405 error response if the message has already successfully been posted to that URL. If the client receives a successful response or a 405 response, there should be a Link header returned containing a new “create-next” link that the client can post new messages to. Continuously providing a “create-next” link allows the client to avoid making two round-trip requests each and every time it wants to post a message to the destination resource. It is up to the server on whether the create-next URL is a permanent URL for the created message. If it is not permanent, the server should return a Content-Location header to the message.

post-message-once example

1. Query the destination root resource for links.Request:

   HEAD /topics/mytopic HTTP/1.1
   Host: example.com
   

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Link: <...>; rel="post-message",
         <...>; rel="post-batch",
         <http://example.com/topics/mytopic/messages>; rel="post-message-once",
         <...>; rel="message-factory"
   

2. Client performs a POST request to the post-message-once Link to obtain a create-next link.Request:

   POST /topics/mytopic/messages
   Host: example.com
   

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Link: <http://example.com/topics/mytopic/messages/111>; rel="create-next"
   

3. Client POSTs message to create-next LinkRequest:

   POST /topics/mytopic/messages/111
   Host: example.com
   Content-Type: application/json
   
   {'something' : 'abitrary'}
   

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 Ok
   Link: <http://example.com/topics/mytopic/messages/112>; rel="create-next"
   

Change to push model subscription

I also added a minor change to the push model’s subscriber registration protocol.  In the previous version of the spec, the client would post form parameters to a subscribers URL on the server.  The form parameter would define a URL to forward messages to and whether or not to use the POE protocol to post this message.  I changed this to simple require the client to post an Atom Link.  Since links define protocol semantics, the server can look at the link relationship registered to know how to interact with the subscriber when forwarding messages.  So, if the client registers a post-message-once link when it creates its subscription, the server knows how to interact with the link.  This gives the client and server a lot of simple flexibility in describing how messages should be forwarded.  For example:

This example shows the creation of a subscription and the receiving of a message by the subscriber.

1. Client consumer queries topic resource for subscribers link.
   Request:

   HEAD /mytopic
   Host: example.com
   

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Link: <http://example.com/mytopic/subscribers, rel=subscribers, type=application/atom+xml
         ...
   

2. Client does POST-Created-Location pattern to create subscriber
   Request:

   POST /mytopic/subscribers
   Host: example.com
   Content-Type: applicatin/atom+xml
   
   <atom:link rel="post-message-once" href="http://foo.com/messages"/>
   

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 201 Created
   Location: /mytopic/subscribers/333
   

3. A message comes in, the message service does a POST to this subscriber based on the interaction pattern described for post-message-once
   Request:

   POST /messages
   Host: foo.com
   

   Response:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Link: <http://foo.com/messages/624>; rel=create-next
   

   Request:

   POST /messages/624
   Host: foo.com
   Link: <http://example.com/mytopic/messages/111>; rel=self,
         <http://example.com/mytopic>; rel=generator
   Content-Type: whatever
   
   body whateve

Overview of Message Draft 4

Just finished draft 4 of REST-* Messaging.  Please check our our discussion group if you want to talk more about it.  Here’s a list of resources and their corresponding relationships for a high level overview.  See the spec for more details.  It relies heavily on Link headers.  The current draft shows a lot of example HTTP request/responses to give you a good idea of what is going on.

Destination

A queue or a topic resource.

Relationships:

• post-message – link to POST/create a message to a queue or topic.  This can be
• post-message-once – link to POST/create a message to a queue or topic using the POST-Once-Exactlly (POE) pattern
• post-batch – POST/create a batch of messages using Atom or Multipart
• post-batch-once – POST/create a batch using the POE pattern.

Message

Every message posted creates a message resource that can be viewed for adminstration, auditing, monitoring, or usage.

Links Relationships:

• reply-to.  Destination that you can reply to
• reply-to-once.  Destination that you can reply to once using the POST-Only-Once pattern
• reply-to-batch. Destination that you can reply with a batch of messages
• reply-to-batch-once.  Batch using POE.
• next.  If pulling from a topic, messages will have this link.  This is the next message after this one.
• acknowledgement.  If pulling from a queue, this link allows you to change the state of the message to acknowleged or not.
• generator, Destination that the message came from

Topic

Has the same links as Destination with these added:

Link Relationships:

• next.  GET the next incoming message.  Clients should use the Accept-Wait header to set a blocking timeout (see later).
• last.  Last posted message to the topic
• first.  First message posted to topic, or, the first message that is still around.
• subscribers. URL that allows you to view (GET) or create/register (POST) a list of URLs to forward messages to.

Queue

Same as Destination, but these additional link relationships:

Link Relationships:

• poller.  Alias to the next available message in the queue.  Returns a message representation along with a Content-Location header pointing to the real one.  a POST is required to access this because the state of the queue is changed.
• subscribers.  Same as topic push model.

Reliable Acknowledgement

I wanted to add acknowledgement to the queue consumer pull model in REST-* Messaging.  The way it would work is that consumers do a POST on the queue’s URL.  They receive the message as well as a Link header pointing to an acknowledgement resource.  When the client consumer successfully processes the message, it posts a form parameter, acknowledge=true to the acknowledgement link.

There is a problem with this though.  The design is connectionless to honor the stateless REST principle.  So there is no specific session resource that the client consumer is interacting with.  The consumer may never acknowledge the message, so I need the server to re-enqueue the message and deliver it to a new consumer.  The problem is, what if the old consumer tries to acknowledge after the message is re-enqueued or even after it is redelivered to a different consumer?

I first thought of letting the first consumer to acknowledge win and do something like POST-Once-Exactly (POE).  The problem with this is, what if there’s a network failure and the consumer doesn’t know if the acknowledgement happened or not?  It would redeliver the message and get back a Method Not Allowed response error code.  With this code, the consumer doesn’t know if somebody else acknowledged the message or if the older request just went through. At first, I thought about in my personal blog of doing a conditional POST using ETag and If-Match.  The acknowledgement link, when performing a GET on it, would return an ETag header that the consumer must transmit with the acknowledgement POST.  If the message was re-enqueued, then the underlying ETag would change, and the conditional post would fail for the older consumer.

On my blog comments, Mike Amundsen pointed out that you can embed the etag information directly within the URL.  Then, the client does not have to be aware of the of the conditional POST requirement and can just POE to the ack link.  You also save on the extra GET request to obtain the ETag header of the resource.  The protocol would look something like this:

1. Consume a messageRequest:

POST /myqueue/consumer

Response:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Link: </myqueue/messages/111/acknowledgement;etag=1>; rel=acknowledgement
Content-Type: ...

...  body ...

2. Acknowledge the message.  Its just a POST back tot he URL.  Remember this is a POE link so if the consumer has to redeliver the POST, the request may return a 405, method not allowed.  Also notice that there is a matrix parameter named etag within the ack URL.  The server will use this information to determine if the correct consumer is acknowledging.
Request:

POST /myqueue/messages/111/acknowledgement;etag=1
Content-Type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded

acknowledge=true

Success Response:

HTTP/1.1 204 No Content

Response when it was updated by somebody else.

HTTP/1.1 412 Precondition Failed

POE Redelivery Response.  It was already successfully updated by the consumer.

HTTP/1.1 405 Method Not Allowed

I wonder if I even need the POE semantics with this. I guess it doesn’t matter if the request is redelivered.

No Wait in HTTP

One thing the HTTP specification does not have is a “Server Timeout” response code.  The 408 and 504 response codes are the only thing that comes close.  The idea of a “Server Timeout” code is that the server received the request, but timed out internally trying to process the request.  Another thing I think that is missing from HTTP is a way for the client to tell the server how long it is willing to wait for a request to be processed.

I’ve run into both of these scenarios with the REST-* Messaging specification when I have pulling client consumers.  For the “Server Timeout” I decided upon 202, Accepted.  It seems to fit as I can tell the client to try again at a specific URL.  As for the client requesting a wait time?  I invented a new request header:  “X-RS-Wait”.  Its value is the time in seconds that the client wants to wait for a request to be processed.  Maybe there is a standard or drafted protocol I missed in my Google search?

REST-* Messaging Draft 3

After prototyping, I’m back to writing another draft. This is a little bit more formal draft. I created a OSS project at:

http://sf.net/projects/rest-star

A draft of the PDF is at:

http://reststar-messaging.googlegroups.com/web/REST-Star-Messaging-draft-3.pdf

(You’ll have to click through an additional link that is *very* long). This draft only talks about the Message Publishing Protocol. I still have to write up the topic and queue push and pull model.  To discuss the draft please post at the REST-* Messaging Group.  I’m also looking for people to help prototype the specification.  Post to the RESTEasy developers list if you’re interested.

New Workflow/BPM Effort

I’ve put together some preliminary thoughts that have been swimming around in my head for the past few months on workflow and BPM.  Its hosted on our new REST-* work-group on the subject.  While we still have some work to do on defining some of the initial media types and going beyond simple use cases, the design is very link driven.  I’ve asked Tom Baeyerns and the jBPM team to help flush out the most common use cases users deal with.  I also need a REST heavyweight lurking around to make sure we’re not introducing unRESTful designs.  Anyways, Enjoy!

We screwed up with first submissions

We really screwed up with the initial drafts we put up for the initial REST-* specifications on a number of levels.  First the specifications were written 1+ years ago by me for the messaging submission and 8+ years ago by  Mark Little.  Both of us, at the time were still trying to come to terms with what REST actually was (we still are) and how you design applications/systems/services around it.  As a result, those initial drafts, while they did follow the uniform interface principle of REST, weren’t very RESTful beyond that.  The thing is, I knew this!  I knew these initial drafts were crap.  I had planned to completely rework them and have draft 2 ready for when we announced.  So, when the press picked up Mark Little’s announcement of REST-* at JBoss World (It was actually only one bullet point on a “future directions” slide), the cat was out of the bag too early and we ended up seriously botching the announcement because we werent’ ready.

While the REST-* name itself was bound to cause friction within the hard-core REST community, when the lurkers on the rest-discuss mail list actually looked at these initial drafts, to them, their greatest fears were realized:  That what we were doing was just a re-hash of the same old architecture vendors have been rehashing over and over again for almost 20 years now (DCE, rehashed to CORBA, rehashed to WS-*) and that we were just repackaging our existing products and calling it REST to be buzzword compliant.  Even a few feared that we were trying to coopt REST itself which was totally incorrect.  We just want to figure out where middleware fits into this new model, specifically the middleware problems that Red Hat is used to solving.

So, we definitely are marketing morons, well specifically me.  I botched the announcement by not being ready.  All I can say is mae culpa.  If you’ve read my blog over the past few days you’ve seen me scurrying to catch up on writing the technical material I had always intended to write.  Hopefully you can see that we’re headed in the right direction in that we’re describing things that are much more RESTful than before.  All we can do is plug on…

Credit Cards, Transactions, and REST

One of the interesting thing about credit cards is that actions performed on your account are not operations, but instead modeled as things that are first related to your account, then that actually change the state of your account.  When you buy something at a store online or in person, you are not actually manipulating your account directly.  A credit card purchase is converted into a thing:  specifically a Debit.  A refund of a purchase is converted into a thing called a Credit.  This credit or debit is logged at Visa or Mastercard.  Once a week (i forget the frequency), a company like Capital One (I used to work for them in the mid-90s) receives a huge magnetic tap roll with all the transactions that are applicable to Capital One’s accounts.  Capital One then pulls these individual credits and debits and matches them with a specific credit card account.  Finally it processes the debits and credits for a account to calculate a final balance.

The key thing to take from this is that credit card transactions are not operations, but actual things.  Another similar construct is an Airline Reservation.  A reservation is very similar to a credit or debit.  It is a representation of the final thing you want to do.  Create a ticket on an airplane.

Where REST and Transactions meet

I think if we constrain ourselves to modeling transactions as things instead that are themselves resources REST and Transactions can co-exist.  So, what transaction processing becomes in RESTful terms is relating one resource to another.  For Credit Cards, transaction processing is the result of relating Debit and Credit resources with Credt Card Account resources.

I think the wrong way to merge REST and Transactions is the way the O’Reilly RESTful Web Services book suggests.  In the book, the authors talk about manipulating an account balance by creating a parallel resource of an account as a subresource of a transaction object:

/transactions/111/account/222

The transaction sub resource is manipulated with representations of the account.  At “commit” time, the “real” account is updated with a new representation of the account.  The funny thing is, as I talked about earlier, the real world doesn’t work in this manner.  This idea that a RESTful Transaction must work in the same way you interact (with JDBC or something) with your database and that uncommitted state modifications to a resource must be viewable just isn’t true and not really feasible, and it is just not RESTful.

Where do Transaction Managers fit in?

A Transaction Manager is a generic service whose sole purpose is to ensure that a distributed system is in a consistent state.  It does this by coordinating actions between various things on the network.  I think if we model actions as things and model transaction processing as the action of relating one or more resource to one or more other resources, Transactions, Transaction Managers, and REST can all fit together.  To illustrate this let’s model a Travel Agent transaction where the Travel Agent is reserving a flight and a room within a hotel.   While there are many different transactional protocols, we’ll model the protocol that RESTafarians deem the most-unRESTful, 2-Phase-Commit.

The resources in our example will be: Reservation, Ticket, Room, Transaction-State, Transaction, and Transaction Manager.  Let’s walk through on how these resources are created.  The end product of these interactions will be a Ticket and  Room.

1. Travel Agent creates a transaction

The Travel Agent interacts withte Transaction Manager resource to create a transaction resource.  For example:

POST /transaction-manager
Content-Type: application/tx+xml

<transaction timeout="1 minute"/>

The Transaction Manager responds with:

HTTP/1.1 200, OK
Content-Type application/tx+xml
Location: /transaction-manager/transactions/11

<transaction timeout="11" state="uncommitted">
   <link rel="participants" href="/transaction-manager/transactions/11/participants"/>
</transaction>

2. The Travel Agent makes an Airline Reservation

POST /airline/reservations
Content-Type: application/airline-rsv+xml

<reservation>
   <date>...</date>
   <flight>...</flight>
   <seat>...</seat>
   <link rel="tranasaction" href="/transaction-manager/transactions/11" type="application/tx+xml"/>
</reservation>

Here the client is creating the reservation.  Notice that the reservation created is related to a transaction.  The server responds with:

HTTP/1.1 200, OK
Location: /airline/reservations/222
Content-Type: application/airline-res+xml

<reservation>
   <date>...</date>
   <flight>...</flight>
   <seat>...</seat>
   <link rel="transaction" href="/transaction-manager/transactions/11" type="application/tx+xml"/>
   <link rel="transaction-state" href="/airline/reservations/22/transaction-state"/ type="application/tx-state+xml"/>
</reservation>

Notice that a new relationship is defined on the Reservation: “transaction-state”.  This is the state of the reservation.  Another thing to note is that this representation returned with the response of the POST would be the same representation returned if you did a GET /airline/reservations/22.

3. Register Transactional State With Transaction

IMO, it doesn’t matter who relates the Reservation’s Transactional State resource with the Transaction resource.  Both the Travel Agent and the Reservation have the links needed to perform the operation.  Whoever does this, the operation might look like this:

POST /transaction-manager/transactions/11/participants
Content-Type: uri-list

http:.../airline/reservations/22/transaction-state

Another way to do this might be to use Link headers and the HTTP LINK operation (don’t quote me on how exactly to do this!):

LINK /transaction-manager/transactions/11/participants
Link: <http:.../airline/reservations/22/transaction-state>; rel="airline-reservation"; type="application/tx-state+xml"

4. Travel Agent Creates Hotel Room Reservation

The Hotel reservation works in the same way as the Airline Reservation, so I don’t want to burden you with reading duplicate interactions

5. Client Commits the Transaction

To Commit the transaction, the client simply POSTs to the Transaction resource

POST /transaction-manager/transactions/11
Content-Type:  application/tx+xml

<transaction state="committed"/>

This would block until the Transaction Manager has coordinated all services.  Or, it could return a 202, Accepted and the client could check back later to see if the state changed or not.

6. Transaction Manager Prepares

The particpants of the transaction have been registered.  The TM initiates the “Prepare” phase of the 2pc protocol by trying to change the state of each partcipants Transaction-State resource to “prepared”, i.e.:

PUT /airline/reservations/22/transaction-state
Content-Type: application/tx-state+xml

<transactional-state state="prepared"/>

What’s happening behind the scenes?  IMO, it doesn’t really matter.  Maybe we’re locking up database resources, maybe we’re just checking to see if it is still possible to purchase a ticket for that flight.

7. Commit each participant

Now that all the participants are in prepare mode, the TM will guarantee that each participant commits by logging the vote to its transaction log.  If any body fails, ( a crash or something), including the Tranactaion Manager, the TM can recover and put things in a consistent state, or if, it can’t, notify a human that it must do something.  This is what a transaction maanger was designed for.  Reliability.  So, the TM changes the state of each particpant to COMMIT. i.e.

PUT /airline/reservations/22/transaction-state
Content-Type: application/tx-state+xml

<transactional-state state="committed"/>

8. Retrieve the Ticket and Room

In this example system, the act of committing the reservation will create a Ticket or Room behind the scenes.  So, now, when the Travel Agent does a GET on the Airline or Hotel Reservation, a new link will pop up that points to a Ticket or Hotel Resource:

GET /airline/reservations/22
Content-Type: application/airline-res+xml

<reservation>
...
   <link rel="ticket" href="/tickets/333" type="application/ticket+xml"/>
</reservation>

Conclusion

An interesting thing to note about this example is that when the interaction completes, there is a complete log of who participated within the transaction through the use of link relationships.

Finally, the point of this blog was not to promote the use of 2PC or Transaction Managers, but to show that it may be possible to model transactions RESTfully by turning actions into things and modeling transaction processing by relating one resource to another.  This is how I envision REST-*.org defining the relationship with REST and Transactions.  If you want to discuss this more, ping us on our working group.