Showing posts with label Web Services. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Web Services. Show all posts

Sunday, June 14, 2009

Truly Dynamic Web Services on WebLogic using JAX-WS

In my last blog (a long time ago I know) I talked about the potential for using JAX-WS on WebLogic 10.3 to fulfil the 8 key values that I believe are important for Web Service based Messaging. I've been using JAX-WS in WebLogic a lot over the last half a year and I've been very impressed with its power. As promised, I'm now (finally) going to describe the results of my experiments, with JAX-WS Providers/Dispatchers specifically, to see if they can achieve 8 out of 8 on my scorecard. Does JAX-WS give me the power and freedom I desire when doing web services?

For the experiment, I have used a Customer based web service example, like I've used before. Using an Interface-First approach, I created a WSDL and associated XSD Schema for a fictitious "Change Customer Information" HTTP SOAP web service. Then I created the Java Web Service (JWS) implementing a JAX-WS Provider interface, rather than using a strongly-typed JAX-WS Service Endpoint Interface (SEI). To test out the integration between the WebLogic's JAX-WS runtime and WebLogic's Security sub-system, I included a WS-Policy in my WSDL to force service consumer applications to provide a WS-Security UserToken (username/password) in the SOAP header for authentication.

My code for the Provider is shown below:
@WebServiceProvider(
  serviceName="CustomerInfoChangeService",
  targetNamespace="testns:custinfochngsvc",
  portName="CustomerInfoChangeServiceSOAP",
  wsdlLocation="/WEB-INF/wsdls/CustomerInfoChangeService.wsdl"
)
@ServiceMode(value=Service.Mode.PAYLOAD)
public class CustomerInfoChangeService implements Provider<Source> {
  private final static String XSD_NMSPC = "testns:custinfo";
  @Resource
  private WebServiceContext context;
 
  public Source invoke(Source request) {  
    try {
      // Check some security stuff
      System.out.println("Service invoked with principal: " + 
                                       context.getUserPrincipal().getName());
      System.out.println("Is in Administrators group? " + 
                                     context.isUserInRole("Administrators"));
   
      // Process request
      Transformer transformer = TransformerFactory.newInstance().newTransformer();
      StreamResult sysOutStream = new StreamResult(System.out);
      System.out.println("Changing following customer info:");
      transformer.transform(request, sysOutStream);
      System.out.println();
   
      // INVOKE REAL XML PROCESSING AND CUSTOMER DB UPDATE LOGIC HERE
   
      // Construct response
      String responseText = "<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\"?>" +
        "<CustomerInfoChangeAcknowledgement xmlns=\"" + XSD_NMSPC + "\">" +
        "  <Ack>SUCCESS</Ack>" +
        "  <Comment>Successfully processed change for customer</Comment>" +
        "</CustomerInfoChangeAcknowledgement>";
      return new StreamSource(new StringReader(responseText));
    } catch (Exception e) {
      throw new WebServiceException("Error in Provider JAX-WS service", e);
    }
  }  
}

I bundled this Provider JWS into a plain WAR archive and deployed to WebLogic. I then created the service consumer code as a standalone Java application. The code for this client, which uses the JAX-WS Dispatch API to locate and invoke the remote Web Service, is shown here:
public class CustomerInfoChangeClient {
  private final static String WSDL_URL_SUFFIX = "?WSDL";
  private final static String WSDL_NMSP = "testns:custinfochngsvc";
  private final static String WSDL_SRVC_PORT = "CustomerInfoChangeServiceSOAP";
  private final static String WSDL_SRVC_NAME = "CustomerInfoChangeService";
  private final static String XSD_NMSP = "testns:custinfo";
  private final static String USERNAME = "weblogic";
  private final static String PASSWORD = "weblogic";
 
  public static void main(String[] args) {  
    if (args.length <= 0) {
      throw new IllegalArgumentException("Must provide endpoint URL arg");
    }

    try {
      new CustomerInfoChangeClient(args[0]);
    } catch (Exception e) {
      e.printStackTrace();
    }
  }

  public CustomerInfoChangeClient(String endpointURL) throws IOException, 
        SAXException, TransformerException, ParserConfigurationException {
    // Construct request
    String requestText = "<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\"?>" +
                         "<CustomerInfo xmlns=\"" + XSD_NMSP + "\">" +
                         "  <Id>1</Id>" +
                         "  <Address1>6</Address1>" +
                         "  <PostCode>AB1 2YZ</PostCode>" +
                         "</CustomerInfo>";
    Source request = new StreamSource(new StringReader(requestText));

    // Invoke service operation, adding appropriate credentials
    Service service = Service.create(new URL(endpointURL + WSDL_URL_SUFFIX),
                                      new QName(WSDL_NMSP, WSDL_SRVC_NAME));
    Dispatch<Source> dispatcher = service.createDispatch(new QName(
            WSDL_NMSP, WSDL_SRVC_PORT), Source.class, Service.Mode.PAYLOAD);
    Map<Object, String> rc = ((BindingProvider) dispatcher).
                                                     getRequestContext();
    List<CredentialProvider> credProviders = new 
                                          ArrayList<CredentialProvider>();
    credProviders.add(new ClientUNTCredentialProvider(USERNAME.getBytes(),
                                                    PASSWORD.getBytes()));
    rc.put(WSSecurityContext.CREDENTIAL_PROVIDER_LIST, credProviders);
    //rc.put(BindingProvider.USERNAME_PROPERTY, USERNAME);
    //rc.put(BindingProvider.PASSWORD_PROPERTY, PASSWORD);
    Source response = dispatcher.invoke(request);

    // Process response  
    Transformer transformer = TransformerFactory.newInstance().
                                                   newTransformer();
    StreamResult sysOutStream = new StreamResult(System.out);
    System.out.println("Change customer service result:");
    transformer.transform(response, sysOutStream);
    System.out.println();
  }
}

Notice that I have not used any generated XML-to-Java classes for the parameters and return values from within the client or in the service itself. Once compiled and run, the client application works completely as expected, and successfully authenticates with the remote web service using the specified username/password WS-Security credentials.

Here are my observations from the experiment:
  • In the simple example I just used StreamSource for processing the XML request and responses at both ends. However, I could have used other APIs such as DOMSource, JAXBSource, SAXSource, StAXSource from the Java 1.6 standard 'javax.xml.transform' packages instead (and even mixed and matched these for the request and the response).
  • I have used javax.xml.transform.Source for accessing the SOAP request and response messages, instead of javax.xml.soap.SOAPMessage. With Source I can only access the contents of the SOAP Body (refered to as the 'PAYLOAD'). With SOAPMessage, I can choose to access the XML elements of the SOAP Envelope (including SOAP headers) as well (refered to as the 'MESSAGE'). However using SOAPMessage restricts me to only being able to process XML using the W3C DOM API, therefore using Source appeals to me more. When using Source, if I need to access SOAP Headers, I'd probably just use JAX-WS Protocol Handlers anyway, to process these headers before or after my main Provider class is called.
  • I don't need to use WebLogic's WSDLC, JWSC or ClientGen Ant tasks because no "build-time" generation of Java classes (using JAXB) or stubs/skeletons is required. For my service, I could have still optionally used JWSC to generate a deployable WAR file with the appropriate web.xml deployment descriptor auto-generated, but I chose to create these artefacts myself, in a way that I can control, using simple Ant build.xml tasks.
  • To ensure that my JAX-WS service is detected properly by the WebLogic runtime, the key thing I needed to do was create a Servlet definition and mapping entry in my web.xml deployment descriptor for my JWS Provider class (even though a provider class does not actually implement javax.servlet.Servlet). During deployment, the WebLogic Web Service Container automatically detects that the web.xml declared servlet is infact a JWS class and automatically maps the URL specified to an internal WebLogic JAX-WS handling Servlet called "weblogic.wsee.jaxws.JAXWSWebAppServlet". As a result, my transport-protocol agnostic SOAP JWS class is now exposed over HTTP. My web.xml file includes the following:
   <servlet>
      <servlet-name>CustomerInfoChangeService</servlet-name>
      <servlet-class>test.service.CustomerInfoChangeService</servlet-class>
   </servlet>
   <servlet-mapping>
      <servlet-name>CustomerInfoChangeService</servlet-name>
      <url-pattern>/CustomerInfoChangeService</url-pattern>
   </servlet-mapping> 
[UPDATE 19-Jun-09: Actually after some further testing, I discovered that if I omit the servlet definition/mapping from my web.xml, the JWS Provider web-app still deploys and runs correctly. WebLogic automatically maps the Provider it discovers on deployment, to a URL which is the Provider class's name (without package name prefix and without .class suffix). This is in-line with the JavaEE 1.5 - Servlet 2.5 spec, where deployment descriptors are now optional. However, it may still be desirable to create a servlet definition/mapping in web.xml to be able to better control the URL of the service).]
  • I would have ideally liked to have included a @RolesAllowed() annotation in my Provider class to help declaratively restrict access to service operations based on role. However, the JAX-WS specification doesn't currently cater for this annotation and WebLogic's JAX-WS implementation does not process this annotation, if its included.
  • In addition to testing authentication using message-level security (eg. a WS-Security user token) I also tested authentication via transport-level security using a client provided HTTP Basic Authentication token (see commented out lines of code in the client app above). In both cases, authentication worked properly, and in my Provider class, when I call context.getUserPrincipal() the proper authenticated principal user object is returned.
  • However, when using context.isUserInRole("Administrators")) in my Provider class, "true" is only returned when using transport-level security, but not when using message-level security. This means that for message-level security, performing programmatic access control is currently limited to checking the user principal object only - the user's roles can't be queried. Here was the security role I defined in web.xml:
    <security-role>
       <role-name>Administrators</role-name>
    </security-role>
...and here is how I mapped the role to my WebLogic EmbeddedLdap 'Administrators' group in weblogic.xml:
    <security-role-assignment>
       <role-name>Administrators</role-name>
       <principal-name>Administrators</principal-name>
    </security-role-assignment>

So to wrap up, how does JAX-WS in WebLogic 10.3 stack up against my 8 criteria?

Well pretty well actually. I would say 7.75 out of 8. A full score on the first 7 criteria in the list and on the 8th (integration with the host container's Security Framework), just a 1/4 point dropped. This is due to a lack of full flexibility in defining declarative or programmatic access control for a service, when using message-level authentication.


Song for today: Festival by Sigur Rós

Friday, October 10, 2008

Web Service Messaging Nirvana

Web Services and specifically SOAP has got a bad rap in recent years, believed to be yet another over-hyped remote procedure call (RPC) protocol, and not cool enough in light of more current hip approaches like REST. Some of this flak is justified and the SOAP community does itself no favours when it releases a newer version of a spec (SOAP 1.2) which goes out of its way to state that SOAP is no longer an acronym. What next? TAFKAS? (The Artist Formerly Know As SOAP)

Anyway, I digress. I blogged in the past about two main areas where SOAP can be used. As you might guess, the main area that interests me is Messaging.

Over the last few years, I've been on a quest to explore how a JavaEE architect and developer can better implement messaging based web services and service consumers in a more loosely coupled and less error prone way. My motivation has been driven by a reaction to the traditional RPC based Web Services programming model that many have used and still use today and all the problems that such a model brings.

Over time I have constructed a list of 8 key values or principles that I believe are necessary for achieving "Web Services Messaging Nirvana". In most cases, these principals are based more on architectural and development approach, than the specific technology or SOAP toolkit used. However, as always, the two can't be completely divorced from each other..

Here's my 8 key values:


  1. Promote Interface/Contract-First Development
  • “Implementation-First” leads to tight coupling between the code in the service provider and the code in the service consumer
  • "Implementation First" leads to a strong dependency on the initial SOAP toolkit used for implementation, which is then difficult to migrate off and leads to the difficulties of vendor lock-in
  1. Enable a Message-Passing Programming Model
  • RPC programming leads to lots of find grained 'chatty' services where brittle pairings exist between provider and consumer which are resistant to change
  • RPC clients tend to assume endpoints are implementations when in reality, they may just be messaging intermediaries (eg. a service bus)
  1. De-couple “Service Interface Definition” from “Message Document Definition”
  • In-lining XML type definitions inside a WSDLs prevents re-use of the message structure definitions across multiple web services and other components in the system as a whole (import external Schemas instead)
  • The message document structures may already be pre-defined in the organisation (eg. industry-wide standard schemas), so the ability to share these definitions across many web services is required‏
  1. Promote Postel’s Law: “Be conservative in what you do; be liberal in what you accept from others”
  • In other words, allow developers to create services with strongly defined interfaces, yet forgiving implementations
  • Service intermediaries and end-points may only care about using part of the message content - they should not concern themselves about trying to validate other parts of a message
  • Enable minor interface version additions without necessarily requiring an upgrade or change to the service provider or service consumer
  1. Avoid the need for manually generated static stubs and skeletons
  • These are invariably an unnecessary time-consuming addition to the development and build process
  • Interface modification always requires re-generation of stubs, skeletons and Java types, forcing service providers and consumers to need to always be corrected, re-compiled and re-deployed.
  • A requirement for Skeletons and Stubs is unlikely when generated Java types are not being used in the implementation
  1. Separate data from the code that operates on it
  • Object-oriented programming is great for service implementations but not for de-coupling disparate elements of the higher level distributed systems that are based on the principle of passing messages or events around
  • Enable message data to be passed between systems without one system caring about or pre-empting how the other system may use and operate on the message’s content
  1. Provide the developer with a choice of XML Tools to use
  • SOAP Toolkits which force messages to be marshalled into a strongly typed Java graph of objects, results in one and only one way that the programmer can operate on the data
  • If only part of a message is required or performance is key, a developer should have the option to use a SAX parser, a Streaming parser or just an XPath based Java API to query and operate on the data
  • If XQuery or XSLT offers some developers a better abstraction and quicker development process then don't prevent a developer from being able plug in this option
  • Retain the choice of being able to generate strongly types Java objects for situations where the developer needs or prefers it, but enable the developer to choose the technology (eg. JAXB, XmlBeans)‏
  1. Integrate with the host container's Security Framework for Web Services Security
  • For an application server based production environment, the server's Security Framework is already likely to be plugged into the organisation's larger security infrastructure (inc. LDAP, Kerberos, PKI and other elements) to provide full support for authentication, access control, single sign-on, identity propagation, encryption and signing. This infrastructure needs to be leveraged by the SOAP Toolkit, not ignored
  • The SOAP Toolkit needs to delegate to, or at least share its security context with, the host container, especially for its support of WS-Security and SAML

In the past, with J2EE 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4 compatible application servers, these values have been very hard to achieve with the application server's built-in SOAP support (ie. JAX-RPC - oriented around the concept of RPC, skeletons, stubs, and generated Java types) or with a Third-Party SOAP Toolkit (eg Apache Axis - little integration with the container's underlying Security Framework).

As a result, on these platforms, I've struggled to be able to get anywhere near achieving my goal of hitting the 8 key values of my Web Service quest.


JavaEE 1.5 introduced the JAX-WS API which is the newer Web Services toolkit for JavaEE developers. The focus of this standard, in my opinion, is still largely based on RPC and generated Java types. However, it does offer a glimmer of hope in form of the option of using a 'dnyamic' server side API (Provider interface) and client-side API (Dispatcher interface).

To my eyes the Provider/Dispatcher facility could finally give me a chance of achieving the 8 key values in a real Web Services based solution.


Version 10.0 of WebLogic was the first version to introduce JAX-WS, but at the time lacked integration with WebLogic's Security Framework and WS-Security and SAML support, thus lessening its relevance to many solutions where securing web services was a key requirement. Many users continued to use WebLogic's JAX-RPC stack due to the need to leverage Weblogic security.

Things have now changed and the JAX-WS implementation in version 10.3 of WebLogic should address this. I hope to blog soon about my experiments with JAX-WS Providers/Dispatchers in WebLogic 10.3 and my quest to realise my 8 key values of Web Services Messaging Nirvana.



Song for today: Burn Baby by Mother Tongue

Friday, September 5, 2008

WSDL-First and Schemas: Use Global Types or Global Elements?

Often I'm faced with needing to expose a Web Service where the request and response bodies are messages, based on a well established shape that is not just the concern of the specific Web Service. The message received by the Web Service is likely to flow through other parts of the internal system 'behind' the service endpoint. The Schemas for these messages are not specific to just the Web Service WSDL but are also used by other internal components which have to deal with XML. Often these Schemas are pre-defined across an organisation or by third-parties (eg. the ARTS IXRetail schema for the Retail industry).

With these sorts of scenarios, a “WSDL first” approach is usually required for creating or generating Web Service end-points, where the WSDL identifies the shape of the service request and response bodies, but does not directly define this shape. Instead, the WSDL imports the externally held Schemas and references entities from the Schema to declare the format of the top-level nodes for a SOAP message body.

With this in mind, when designing Schemas that will be used by WSDLs and other XML components, I've been trying to work out whether top-level schema entities should be defined as Global Types or as Global Elements.

So I tried a little experiment, using a simple home-made schema to represent a Customer, including Name, Date of Birth, Addresses and Telephone Numbers. I created a SOAP Web Service which enables a Customer's personal information to be retrieved by providing the customer's name as the search criteria in the SOAP request.

First I tried using a Global Type in my Customer schema (Customer.xsd) to represent the shape of the top level request XML (CustomerSearchCrtieria) and response XML (Customer), as follows:
<schema ....>
<complexType name="CustomerSearchCriteria">
    <sequence>
        <element name="FirstName" type="tns:FirstName"/>
        <element name="LastName" type="tns:LastName"/>
    </sequence>
</complexType>

<complexType name="Customer">
    <sequence>
        <element name="FirstName" type="tns:FirstName"/>
        <element name="LastName" type="tns:LastName"/>
        <element name="DateOfBirth" type="tns:DateOfBirth"/>
        <element name="Address" type="tns:Address" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
        <element name="Telephone" type="tns:TelephoneNumber" minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded"/>
    </sequence>
</complexType>
....
In the WSDL, I defined the request and response message parts to use the two Global Types from the imported schemas, as follows:
<wsdl:definitions name="CustomerInfoService" ... xmlns:cust="http://www.example.org/Customer">
<wsdl:types>
    <xsd:schema>
        <xsd:import namespace="http://www.example.org/Customer" schemaLocation="./Customer.xsd"/>
    </xsd:schema>
</wsdl:types>
 
<wsdl:message name="GetCustomerInfoRequest">
    <wsdl:part name="MyCustomerSearchCriteria" type="cust:CustomerSearchCriteria"/>
</wsdl:message>

<wsdl:message name="GetCustomerInfoResponse">
    <wsdl:part name="MyCustomer" type="cust:Customer"/>
</wsdl:message>
....
Then when I fired a SOAP request into the service using my test harness, the SOAP request contained the following (notice no namespace for top level element in the body):
<soapenv:Envelope ....>
<soap:Header ..../>
<soapenv:Body>
    <MyCustomerSearchCriteria xmlns:cus="http://www.example.org/Customer">
        <cus:FirstName>Paul</cus:FirstName>
        <cus:LastName>Done</cus:LastName>
    </MyCustomerSearchCriteria>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
The SOAP response contained the following (notice no namespace for top level element in the body):
<soapenv:Envelope ....>
<soap:Header  ..../>
<soapenv:Body>
    <MyCustomer xmlns:cus="http://www.example.org/Customer">
        <cus:FirstName>Paul</cus:FirstName>
        <cus:LastName>Done</cus:LastName>
        <cus:DateOfBirth>1973-12-12</cus:DateOfBirth>
        <cus:Address>
            <cus:HouseNumber>1</cus:HouseNumber>
            <cus:Street>High Street</cus:Street>
            <cus:Town>Big Town</cus:Town>
            <cus:Postcode>BT1 1AZ</cus:Postcode>
        </cus:Address>
        <cus:Telephone>
            <cus:AreaCode>0111</cus:AreaCode>
            <cus:LocalNumber>1234561</cus:LocalNumber>
        </cus:Telephone>
    </MyCustomer>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
As you can see, the resulting top level XML element inside the SOAP body for both the request and the response is NOT part of the same namespace at the rest of the message XML. This is because the top-level element has actually been defined as an element by the WSDL, rather than being defined externally in the schema itself. To me this is less than ideal because I believe most people would want the whole message to have the same namespace.

In addition I believe most people would want the top level nodes to have an element name mandated by the Schema, not by the WSDL (eg. the top level element should be forced to be 'Customer' and not 'MyCustomer').

So I then tried using a Global Element instead, in my Customer schema (Customer.xsd) to represent the shape of the top level request XML (CustomerSearchCrtieria) and response XML (Customer), as follows:
<schema ...>
<element name="CustomerSearchCriteria" type="tns:CustomerSearchCriteria"/>

<element name="Customer" type="tns:Customer"/>
....
In the WSDL, I defined the request and response message parts to use the two Global Elements from the schemas, as follows:
<wsdl:definitions name="CustomerInfoService" .... xmlns:cust="http://www.example.org/Customer">
<wsdl:types>
    <xsd:schema>
        <xsd:import namespace="http://www.example.org/Customer" schemaLocation="./Customer.xsd"/>
    </xsd:schema>
</wsdl:types>

<wsdl:message name="GetCustomerInfoRequest">
    <wsdl:part element="cust:CustomerSearchCriteria" name="parameters"/>
</wsdl:message>

<wsdl:message name="GetCustomerInfoResponse">
    <wsdl:part element="cust:Customer" name="parameters"/>
</wsdl:message>
....
Then when I fired a SOAP request into the service using my test harness, the SOAP request contained the following:
<soapenv:Envelope ....>
<soap:Header ..../>
<soapenv:Body>
    <cus:CustomerSearchCriteria xmlns:cus="http://www.example.org/Customer">
        <cus:FirstName>Paul</cus:FirstName>
        <cus:LastName>Done</cus:LastName>
    </cus:CustomerSearchCriteria>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
The SOAP response contained the following:
<soapenv:Envelope ....>
<soap:Header ..../>
<soapenv:Body>
    <cus:Customer xmlns:cus="http://www.example.org/Customer">
        <cus:FirstName>Paul</cus:FirstName>
        <cus:LastName>Done</cus:LastName>
        <cus:DateOfBirth>1973-12-12</cus:DateOfBirth>
        <cus:Address>
            <cus:HouseNumber>1</cus:HouseNumber>
            <cus:Street>High Street</cus:Street&
            <cus:Town>Big Town</cus:Town>
            <cus:Postcode>BT1 1AZ</cus:Postcode>
        </cus:Address>
        <cus:Telephone>
            <cus:AreaCode>0111</cus:AreaCode>
            <cus:LocalNumber>1234561</cus:LocalNumber>
        </cus:Telephone>
    </cus:Customer>
</soapenv:Body>
</soapenv:Envelope>
As you can now see, all of the elements in the XML message, contained within the request and response SOAP bodies, now have the same namespace and the top level element name is defined by the Schema rather than by the WSDL. This is much more desirable in my view.

In summary, when dealing with Web Services in a “WSDL-first” scenario and using externally defined schemas, I would recommend defining Global Elements in the Schema and then referencing these elements from a WSDL, rather than using Global Types. This enables the complete message to share the same namespace and enables all elements (and their names), in the message, to be completely defined and enforced by the Schema.


Note: I am not necessarily making a recommendation to use Global Elements over Global Types in all circumstances, rather, just in situations where a Schema could possibly be used directly by a SOAP Web Service description file (WSDL).in addition to other parts of a system.


Soundtrack for today: Gouge Away by Pixies

Monday, February 25, 2008

Web Services: RPC, REST and Messaging

[Originally posted on my old BEA Dev2Dev blog on February 25, 2008]
Choosing a model for interoperable communication in the enterprise

For the implementation of Web Services in the enterprise environment, I've seen many different technologies used. Recently, in my spare moments, I've reflected on this and have come to the conclusion that all these technologies tend to fit one of three models (or hybrids of these models).

I would summarise these three models as:
  1. Remote Procedure Calls (RPC). A client-server based remotable pattern where a subset of an existing system's local functions is exposed pretty much 'as-is' over the wire to client programs.
  2. Resource-oriented Create-Read-Update-Delete (CRUD). A client-server based resource-oriented pattern where the server-side provides a representation of a set of resources (often hierarchical) and exposes Create, Read, Update and Delete capabilities for these resources to client programs.
  3. Messaging (eg. as commonly seen with Message Oriented Middleware and B2B). Messages or documents are passed asynchronously between peer systems in either, but not always both, directions.
Sometimes its hard to distinguish between these models and where the boundaries lie. In fact, I don't think there are boundaries, only grey areas and all three models lie in the same spectrum. I've attempted to visualise this spectrum in the diagram below.


Depending on where your implementation lies in the spectrum, the different highlighted characteristics should manifest themselves. 
 
In the Web Services world, we may typically implement these three models using one of the following three approaches:
  1. Remote Procedure Calls: SOAP using a synchronous RPC programming approach and, typically, generated 'skeletons/stubs' and some sort of Object-to-XML marshalling technology
  2. Resource-oriented Create-Read-Update-Delete: REST or 'RESTful Web Services' or ROA, re-using World-Wide-Web based approaches and standards like HTTP and URIs
  3. Messaging: SOAP using an asynchronous Message/Document passing approach where invariably the documents are defined by schemas and, often, the use of message-level (rather than transport-level) security elements is required
The confusing thing is the fact that SOAP can happily and naturally satisfy two of these three models (ie. both RPC and Messaging), albeit that these two models are polar opposites which causes much confusion and is probably part of the reason why SOAP gets a bad name in some quarters.

The problem is further compounded with SOAP because the SOAP specification and accompanying collateral talks about two possible 'Styles' (ie. 'RPC' style and 'Document' style). However as I explained here, just because your SOAP Web Services are marked as 'Document' style in your WSDLs, it doesn't mean you are not doing remote procedure call based programming.

When faced with the REST zealot or the WS-* zealot, we probably need to bear this spectrum in mind. For the Web Services paradigm, there is not a 'one-size fits all' and specific requirements for a given situation should dictate which position in this spectrum best lends itself to satisfying the requirements. Also, the overlap between the models may be greater than shown in the diagram. For example, some would argue that REST can happily and more appropriately be used to fulfil what would otherwise be RPC oriented problems, in addition to solving Resource-oriented CRUD style problems.


Soundtrack for today: Purity by The God Machine

Friday, August 10, 2007

Tips for Web Services Interoperability

[Originally posted on my old BEA Dev2Dev blog on August 10, 2007]
I try to follow some simple rules to maximise interoperability when developing Web Services using WebLogic and/or AquaLogic Service Bus (ALSB). Most of the rules are pretty obvious, but perhaps one or two are not?. In case some of these rules are useful to others, I thought I'd share them, so here they are:
  1. Use SOAP over HTTP. I've blogged here about why SOAP over JMS shouldn't be used if interoperability is a concern.

  2. Conform to the WS-I Basic Profile 1.1 by using the free WS-I Test Tool. Test the WSDL and over-the-wire SOAP requests/responses for the created Web Services, for conformity using the tool available here (look for "Interoperability Testing Tools 1.1").

  3. Expose Web Services using the "Document-Literal-Wrapped" style with the 'dotNetStyle' flag to help WS-I conformity and to be especially Microsoft product friendly. I partly covered this in the blog here

  4. Use the WS-* standards judiciously. WebLogic implemented standards such as WS-Addressing, WS-Security, SAML and WS-ReliableMessaging are not necessarily implemented by other Web Services products/stacks or the specification version supported by these may be different.

  5. Don't necessarily dismiss the use of WebLogic 'add-value' / 'non-standard' Web Services features at face-value

    • 'Buffered' Web Services are interoperable with other client Web Services stacks at the basic SOAP-HTTP level because the service consumer is not aware that the service implementation uses a JMS queue for buffering internally.
    • 'Callbacks' may be interoperable with non-WebLogic service consumers as long as the non-WebLogic consumers include the WS-Addressing 'Reply-To' header in the request and provide a web service endpoint to be asynchronously called back on for the specified 'Reply-To' URL
    • 'Asynchronous Requests/Responses' may be interoperable with non-WebLogic service providers as long as the non-WebLogic providers honour the received WS-Addressing 'Reply-To' header of the request, by sending the Web Service response asynchronously to the specified 'Reply-To' URL.
    • However, 'Conversational' Web Services are highly unlikely to be interoperable with non-WebLogic based service providers or consumers. The specification 'WS-Conversation' which the 'Conversational' feature would probably most clearly map to, doesn't really exist as a public specification and there is no indication that it ever will (an incomplete internal draft version has been dormant for a few years now).
  6. For SOAP/HTTP Proxies created in ALSB, activate the "WS-I compliance enforcement" option (for the development phase of the project at least). When ALSB is used to act as an intermediary between Web Services consumers and providers, this ALSB option will help any Web Service non-conformities to be detected, so that they can be quickly rectified.
Note: ALSB also transparently converts between SOAP version 1.1 and SOAP version 1.2 inbound and outbound messages and ALSB is specifically tested by BEA for interoperability against third-party vendor toolkits such as Microsoft .NET and Apache Axis.


Soundtrack for today: Forensic Scene by Fugazi

Tuesday, July 31, 2007

RPC-Encoded. Document-Literal. Does it really matter?

[Originally posted on my old BEA Dev2Dev blog on July 31, 2007]
In SOAP, there are two possible styles:
  1. RPC. Implies a SOAP body structure which indicates service name, and multiple parameters and return values
  2. Document. Implies a SOAP body which is a complex message document
In SOAP, there are two possible uses:
  1. Encoded. Adheres to a set of rules for serialising a graph of typed objects using basic XML schema data-types, but as a whole, does not conform to a schema
  2. Literal. Body content conforms to a specific XML schema
In most SOAP toolkits, the most common combinations of Style and Use are RPC-Encoded and Document-Literal. Additionally, RPC-Literal is becoming more prevalent although it is currently a lot less common. Document-Encoded doesn't really make sense and as a result I doubt you'll find it implemented in your favourite SOAP toolkit.

RPC-Encoded was the initial message format for SOAP, when SOAP was originally aimed at just the Remote Procedure Call programming model. Document-Literal was incorporated into the SOAP standard in time for SOAP 1.0. It was intended to enable XML documents (messages) to be passed as the full content of the SOAP body, usually with one input message part and one return message part.

Like most J2EE Application Servers, the core of WebLogic's Web Services support is based on the JAX-RPC 1.1 specification. JAX-RPC defines a Remote Procedure Call based programming model and API for developers who want to expose a set of Java methods remotely (JAX-RPC does not offer much in the way of support for adopting the alternative distributed computing model of "Messaging").

Given that JAX-RPC is based on the RPC programming model, then in terms of best practices, it's obvious then that we should be using RPC-Encoded (or RPC-Literal) as the preferred SOAP Style/Use for creating and exposing newly developed Web Services, isn't it?
Well, not necessarily....

The terminology of RPC versus Document SOAP Styles is very unfortunate when we start to consider Remote Procedure Call versus Document/Messaging distributed programming models. These terms imply that the RPC Style should be used for RPC programming models and that the Document style should be used for Document (Messaging) programming models. That is not the case at all. In practice, the SOAP Style has nothing to do with a programming model, it merely dictates how to translate a WSDL binding to a SOAP message. For example, WebLogic's JAX-RPC toolkit equally supports exposing the same Java methods remotely via either style. You can use either style with either programming model.

A SOAP Style/Use of Document-Literal provides two distinct advantages over RPC-Encoded:
  1. WS-I Basic Profile precludes the use of "Encoded" as the SOAP Use. So, if promoting interoperability and openness is your concern then you wouldn't choose RPC-Encoded over Document-Literal* (and why else would you be using SOAP other than for interoperability?).

  2. RPC-Encoded provides no real separation between the format of the SOAP body (eg. that could be defined by a Schema) and the transport protocol and invocation format of a SOAP operation (eg. defined by a WSDL). For Document-Literal, the SOAP body content conforms to one or more Schemas which can optionally be externalised from the WSDL (and then included into the WSDL via an 'import' statement). Why is this important? Well, Document-Literal can promote the re-use of the same XML Schemas across the many different Web Services you may need to expose and throughout the rest of your distributed application logic which may need to deal with the same XML data formats. As we know, re-use reduces development effort, helps avoid errors and promotes consistency.
In summary, the decision of using RPC-Encoded or Document-Literal really doesn't have a direct relation to whether one is adopting a Remote Procedure Call programming model rather than a Document/Message-passing programming model. In practice, regardless of programming model, Document-Literal offers practical advantages.

Footnote: There is a new alternative Web Services toolkit which can be used, based on JAX-WS 2.0. JAX-WS offers developers an alternative programming model based on Messaging in addition to the Remote Procedure Programming model which is also supported. JAX-WS is newly supported in WebLogic 10, with some restrictions.

* In fact, use WebLogic's 'Wrapped' option with "Document-Literal" to help further promote interoperability with both Microsoft based Web Services toolkits (which traditionally prefer the Document-Literal-Wrapped style) and Remote Procedure Call oriented client Web Services toolkits (which often expect to be able to include the 'remote operation' name within the SOAP requests they send, rather than using another mechanism such as WS-Addressing to identify the operation to invoke).


Soundtrack for today: Off To One Side by Come