RESTful API design convention

Spread the love

Original content is at:


Standard Methods

We already discussed that resources are the fundamental concept in a RESTful API, and that each resource has its own unique URL. Methods can be executed on resources via their URL.

The table below lists the standard methods that have a well-defined meaning for all resources and collections.


Retrieve all resources in a collection

Retrieve a single resource

Retrieve all resources in a collection (header only)

Retrieve a single resource (header only)

Create a new resource in a collection

Update a resource

Update a resource

Delete a resource

Return available HTTP methods and other options

Normally, not all resources and collections implement all methods. There are two ways to find out which methods are accepted by a resource or collection.

  1. Use the OPTIONS method on the URL, and look at the “Allow” header that is returned. This header contains a comma-separated list of methods are are supported for the resource or collection.
  2. Just issue the method you want to issue, but be prepared for a “405 Method Not Allowed” response that indicates the method is not accepted for this resource or collection.


Sometimes, it is required to expose an operation in the API that inherently is non RESTful. One example of such an operation is where you want to introduce a state change for a resource, but there are multiple ways in which the same final state can be achieved, and those ways actually differ in a significant but non-observable side-effect. Some may say such transitions are bad API design, but not having to model all state can greatly simplify an API. A great example of this is the difference between a “power off” and a “shutdown” of a virtual machine. Both will lead to a vm resource in the “DOWN” state. However, these operations are quite different.

As a solution to such non-RESTful operations, an “actions” sub-collection can be used on a resource. Actions are basically RPC-like messages to a resource to perform a certain operation. The “actions” sub-collection can be seen as a command queue to which new action can be POSTed, that are then executed by the API. Each action resource that is POSTed, should have a “type” attribute that indicates the type of action to be performed, and can have arbitrary other attributes that parameterize the operation.

It should be noted that actions should only be used as an exception, when there’s a good reason that an operation cannot be mapped to one of the standard RESTful methods. If an API has too many actions, then that’s an indication that either it was designed with an RPC viewpoint rather than using RESTful principles, or that the API in question is naturally a better fit for an RPC type model.


The HTTP RFC specifies that PUT must take a full new resource representation as the request entity. This means that if for example only certain attributes are provided, those should be removed (i.e. set to null).

An additional method called PATCH has been proposed recently. The semantics of this call are like PUT inthat it updates a resource, but unlike PUT, it applies a delta rather than replacing the entire resource. At the time of writing, PATCH was still a proposed standard waiting final approval.

For simple resource representations, the difference is often not important, and many APIs simply implement PUT as a synonym for PATCH. This usually doesn’t give any problems because it is not very common that you need to set an attribute to null, and if you need to, you can always explicitly include it.

However for more complex representations, especially including lists, it becomes very important to be able to express accurately the changes you want to make. Therefore, it is my recommendation now to both provide PATCH and PUT, and make PATCH do an relative update and have PUT replace the entire resource.

It is important to realize that the request entity to PATCH is of a different content-type than the entity that it is modifying. Instead of being a full resource, it is a resource that describes modifications to be made to a resource. For a JSON data model, which is what this essay is advocating, I believe that there are two sensible ways to define the patch format.

  1. An informal approach where you accept a dict with a partial representation of the object. Only attributes that are present are updated. Attributes that are not present are left alone. This approach is simple, but it has the drawback that if the resource has a complex internal structure e.g. containing a big list of dicts, then that entire list of dicts need to be given in the entity. Effectively PATCH becomes similar to PUT again.
  2. A more formal approach would be to accept a list of modifications. Each modification can be a dict specifying the JSON path of the node to modify, the modification (‘add’, ‘remove’, ‘change’) and the new value.

Link Headers

An Internet draft exists defining the “Link:” header type. This header takes the “link” attributes of the response entity, and formats them as an HTTP header. It is argued that the Link header is useful because it allows a client to quickly get links from a response without having to parse the response entity, or even without retrieving the response entity at all using the HEAD HTTP method.

In my view, the usefulness of this feature is dubious. First of all, it can increase response sizes quite significantly. Second, it can only be used when a resource is being returned; it does not make sense to be used with collections. Because I have not yet seen any good use of this header in the context of a RESTful API, I recommend not to implement Link headers.

Asynchronous Requests

Sometimes an action takes too long to be completed in the context of a single HTTP request. In that case, a “202 Accepted” status can be returned to the client. Such a response should only be returned for POST, PUT, PATCH or DELETE.

The response entity of a 202 Accepted response should be a regular resource with only the information filled in that was available at the time the request was accepted. The resource should contain a “link” attribute that points to a status monitor that can be polled to get updated status information.

When polling the status monitor, it should return a “response” object with information on the current status of the asynchronous request. If the request is still in progress, such a response could look like this (in YAML):

status: 202 Accepted
progress: 50%

If the call has finished, the response should include the same headers and response body had the request been fulfilled synchronously:

status: 201 Created
 - name: content-type
   value: applicaton/x-resource+yaml
response: !!str
  Response goes here

After the response has been retrieved once with a status that is not equal to “202 Accepted”, the API code may garbage collect it and therefore clients should not assume it will continue to be available.

A client may request the server to modify its asynchronous behavior with the following “Expect” headers:

  • “Expect: 200-ok/201-created/204-no-content” disables all asynchronous functionality. The server may return a “417 Expectation Failed” if it is not willing to wait for an operation to complete.
  • “Expect: 202-accepted” explicitly request an asynchronous response. The server may return a “417 Expectation Failed” if it is not willing to perform the request asynchronously.

If no expectation is provided, client must be prepared to accept a 202 Accepted status for any request other than GET.

Ranges / Pagination

When collections contain many resources, it is quite a common requirement for a client to retrieve only a subset of the available resources. This can be implemented using the Range header with a “resource” range unit:

GET /api/collection
Range: resources=100-199

The above example would return resources 100 through 199 (inclusive).

Note that it is the responsibility of the API implementer to ensure a proper and preferably meaningful ordering can be guaranteed for the resources.

Servers should provide an “Accept-Ranges: resource” header to indicate to a client that they support resource-based range queries. This header should be provided in an OPTIONS response:

OPTIONS /api/collection HTTP/1.1

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Accept-Ranges: resources


Another common requirement is where a client wants to be notified immediately when some kind of event happens.

Ideally, such a notification would be implemented using a call-out from the server to the client. However, there is no good portable standard to do this over HTTP, and it also breaks with network address translation and HTTP proxies. A second approach called busy-loop polling is horribly inefficient.

In my view, the best approach is what is is called “long polling”. In long polling, the client will retrieve a URL but the server will not generate a response yet. The client will wait for a configurable amount of time, until it will close the connection and reconnect. If the server becomes aware of an event that requires notification of clients, it can provide that event immediately to clients that are currently waiting.

Long polling should be disabled by default, and can be enabled by a client using an Expect header. For example, a client could long poll for new resources in a collection using a combination of long-polling and a resource-based range query:

GET /api/collection
Range: 100-
Expect: nonempty-response

In this case, resource “100” would be the last resource that was read, and the call is requesting the API to return at least one resource with an ID > 100.

Server implementers need to decide whether they want to implement long polling using one thread per waiting client, or one thread that uses multiplexed IO to wait for all clients. This is a trade-off to be made between ease of implementation and scalability (that said, threads are pretty cheap on modern operating systems).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *