Skip to main content

WS-* and REST, Which Is Better and Why?

I have been hooked up to REST these days after having some times to go through the WCF Web Programming Model (I know I am lagging behind in technologies !).
While looking at the pros and cons of REST and WS-*, I could see more then few web pages, blogs, on the debate of what’s the best solution for SOA.
REST is easy to use, no SOAP-client tool kits needed to generate web service proxies, as the fundamental concept behind REST being every operation is accessed by its unique URI, it's just a matter of typing it in your web browser, this also makes testing easier for developers (as all they need to do to see if the service is working, is to type the url in the browser !)
Further more if your are practicing an asynchronous pattern such as using AJAX, it might be very easy to call a REST service, get the response in JSON and do the processing on the client side, this is much easier then using the typical DOM method to parse XML.
When it comes to coupling, REST is more loosely coupled then WS-* services, because with WS-* web services, the client needs to know a great deal about the service and if the web service changes, your client need to update for it to continue working, but with REST, your only need to know the URL of the resource and nothing more, this makes REST more loosely coupled then WS-* web services.
From the non-functional requirement point of view, simplicity of architecture, performance due to no or less XML overhead and caching of result set (page) which is
built into the back bones of HTTP and the ability to server a huge number of clients due caching and clustering support built into REST (HTTP), stand out.
This does not mean WS-* or SOAP web services are going away...WS-* web services from my opinion are the best choice for enterprise applications (although there is a debate to this), with it's reliability, security and transactional capabilities.
REST does not support distributed transaction directly, and when it comes to security, REST has to entirely depend on the best it has, SSL.
REST would always be a better choice when it comes to developing services when you don’t know your clients, in other words the type of clients. As a final point, it’s is very clear that when it comes to WS-* web services, there are more alternatives when it comes to making architectural decisions and if advanced functionality delivered by WS-* is needed, it is no easy thing to extend RESTful services to deliver this
So finally to say, I am not saying REST is better then SOAP or vice versa, but what I am saying it's a matter of
pure architectural decision.
This is not a compressive comparison between REST and WS-* but instead a snap shot.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The maximum nametable character count quota (16384) has been exceeded

Some of our services were growing and the other day it hit the quote, I could not update the service references, nor was I able to run the WCFTest client. An error is diplayed saying " The maximum nametable character count quota (16384) has been exceeded " The problem was with the mex endpoint, where the XML that was sent was too much for the client to handle, this can be fixed by do the following. Just paste the lines below within the configuration section of the devenve.exe.config and the svcutil.exe.config files found at the locations C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0\Common7\IDE , C:\Program Files\Microsoft SDKs\Windows\v6.0A\bin Restart IIS and you are done. The detailed error that you get is the following : Error: Cannot obtain Metadata from net.tcp://localhost:8731/ Services/SecurityManager/mex If this is a Windows (R) Communication Foundation service to which you have access, please check that you have enabled metadata publishing at the specified address. F

Hosting WCF services on IIS or Windows Services?

There came one of those questions from the client whether to use II7 hosting or windows service hosting for WCF services. I tried recollecting a few points and thought of writing it down. WCF applications can be hosted in 2 main ways - In a Windows service - On IIS 7 and above When WCF was first released, IIS 6 did not support hosting WCF applications that support Non-HTTP communication like Net.TCP or Net.MSMQ and developers had to rely on hosting these services on Windows Services. With the release of IIS 7, it was possible to deploy these Non-Http based applications also on IIS 7. Following are the benefits of using IIS 7 to host WCF applications Less development effort Hosting on Windows service, mandates the creating of a Windows service installer project on windows service and writing code to instantiate the service, whereas the service could just be hosted on IIS by creating an application on IIS, no further development is needed, just the service implementa

ASP.NEt 2.0 Viewstate and good practices

View state is one of the most important features of ASP.NET because it enables stateful programming over a stateless protocol such as HTTP. Used without strict criteria, though, the view state can easily become a burden for pages. Since view state is packed with the page, it increases size of HTTP response and request. Fortunately the overall size of the __VIEWSTATE hidden field (in ASP.NET 2.0) in most cases is as small as half the size of the corresponding field in ASP.NET 1.x. The content of the _VIEWSTATE field (in client side) represent the state of the page when it was last processed on the server. Although sent to the client, the view state doesn't contain any information that should be consumed by the client. In ASP.NET 1.x, if you disable view state of controls, some of them are unable to raise events hence control become unusable. When we bind data to a grid, server encodes and put whole grid in to view state, which will increase size of view state (proportional to the