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.


Popular posts from this blog

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 aboveWhen 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 implementation is n…

Task based Asynchronous pattern, Async & Await and .NET 4.5

One of the key features in .Net 4.5 is to write asynchronous programs much easier. So if I was to write asynchronous programs in .Net 2.0/3.5, I would either follow the event based model or the callback based model. For an example, a synchronous method that does intensive work (say the DoWork()) can be made asynchronous by using the following patterns
1) Implementing the IAsyncResult pattern. in this implementation, 2 methods are exposed for the DoWork() synchronous method, the BeginDoWork() and the EndDoWork() method. The user will call the BeingDoWork() passing in the required parameters and a callback of the delegate type AsyncCallback(IAsyncResult). The BeginDoWork() will spawn a new thread a return control back to the user. Once work is completed in the spawned method, as a last step, it will call the inform the AsyncResult implementation, which in turns will call the EndDoWork() (which is the callback that was passed in to the BeginDoWork()).
2) Implementing the event pattern. Her…

MEF (Managed Extensibility Framework), .NET 4, Dependency Injection and Plug-in Development

Almost after .Net 4 was released I remember reading about MEF (Managed Extensibility Framework), this was a framework for developers to compose their application with required dependencies. At first this looks like the Unity Container used for dependency injection, but MEF is much more than a dependency container but there is nothing stopping you from using MEF as a dependency injector.I remember around 5 years back when I was in a project that created a framework that allows developers to plug-in there modules as WinForm screens. The developer would create a set of screens with the intended functionalities and the drop this component in the bin folder of the framework and then will move on to do some painful configurations for the framework to pick up the module. Dropping the component into the bin folder and doing a bit of configuration is all that s needed for the framework to pick up display the screens. Typically, the configurations would also contain metadata about the screen.Al…