which is better alternative for calling REST endpoint in springboot application, calling REST endpoints using WebClient or calling REST endpoints using RestTemplate ?
Spring’s documentation recommends using WebClient, but that’s only a valid recommendation for reactive apps. If you aren’t writing a reactive app, use OpenFeign instead. Like anything else in software, it fits well for some cases, but might complicate things for others. Choosing WebClient to implement the REST endpoint calls is strongly coupled to making your app reactive
RestTemplate gives many advantages if you are using it from within Springboot application, i.e. in your server side to another part of your own app - sort of like an internal call. Because the RestTemplate "knows" all your entities and beans and so if you need to send over or receive an object which is known within your springboot application RestTemplate can map them automatically which is a very nice advantage. If you sending a request to some third party api and do not pass or receive your known entities RestTemplate is still a valid option but it just becomes just another Http client. Its just simply there as part of Springboot provided tools. But in this case you may use any other client as well.
Related
I want to consume a couple of rest services. Before I have used RestTemplate, but now I want to know What is main diffrences of SpringBoot FeignClient and WebClient?
when they should be used?
To be able to answer “when” one needs to understand the capabilities of each.
Spring WebClient is a non-blocking reactive client to make HTTP requests. Hence if you intend to use Spring Reactive Stream API to stream data asynchronously then this is the way to go. Think event-driven architecture. WebClient is part of the Spring WebFlux library.
[Feign]3 is a declarative REST library that uses annotations based architecture with thread-per-request model. This means that the thread will block until the feign client receives the response. The problem with the blocking code is it must wait until the consuming thread completes, hence think memory and CPU cycles.
So use Spring WebClient when needing non-blocking HTTP requests otherwise Feign due to simple usage model.
(Note: There is no reason as to why one cannot use WebClient for blocking operations but Feign is more mature and it’s annotation based model makes it easier)
The main difference is that WebClient supports Reactive calls.
You can achieve that with 3rd party feign clients like https://github.com/Playtika/feign-reactive but basically for a reactive way you should consider using WebClient with some neat async connector like Jetty. On the other hand, If you want a blocking way with minimal hassle then Feign could be your best choice.
WebClient is a non-blocking reactive.
Feign is blocking.
I get that Feign is declarative and hence it abstracts out a lot of things for the developer. But, when should one choose one over the other? Though feign is declarative, it has serious problems with oAuth. What are some of the considerations in using RestTemplate over Feign
Feign allows you to abstract the mechanics of calling a REST service. Once you configure and annotate the Feign interface, you can call a REST service by making a simple Java function call. The actual implementation of making a REST call is handled at runtime by Feign. This means that the implementation can be configured without changing your business logic code.
By just changing the Feign configuration in Java or using properties you can add encoding/decoding, logging, and change the REST call implementation library. All this is done through configuration only, while the business logic that calls the service remains unchanged.
Since Feign uses standard Java interfaces, it's also easy to mock them during unit tests.
There are certain advantages.
1.URLs are not hardcoded.
2.you don't have to write unit test cases for feign as there is no code to test however you have to write integration tests.
3.we can use Eureka Client ID instead of the URL.
4.Feign handled the actual code.
5.Feign integrates with Ribbon and Eureka Automatically.
6.Feign provides a very easy way to call RESTful services.
One of the advantages of using Feign over RestTemplate is that, we do not need to write any implementation to call the other services. So there is no
need to write any unit test as there is no code to test in the first place. However, it is advised that we write Integration tests.
Using Feign-clients over rest-templates has number of advantages. I will list down those below.
The developer need not worry about the implementation. Just to create abstract Feign interface and few annotations - declarative
principle. (If you want customized configuration, then it will hold
some code)
With Spring Cloud Eureka, Ribbon client-side load-balancer will be equipped with Feign client.
No need to worry about the unit test, because there is no implementation from you to test. (Arguable)
Supports Feign annotations and JAX-RS annotations.
Highly compatible and easily configurable with Spring Cloud (Specially with Eureka server registry)
Allows Feign client configuration via #Configuration class or application properties.
Allows us to add interceptors. (Add interceptors via #Configuration or application properties. Alternatively can use
Spring Cloud provided interceptors as well. Example -
BasicAuthRequestInterceptor)
Hystrix support for fall-back mechanism.
Logging
Error handling
Feign is a good choice, If you are fascinated with JPA and the way how it resolves your queries, then Feign is the tool for you. Feign will handle your server requests perfectly fine.
RestTemplate is used for making the synchronous call. When using RestTemplate, the URL parameter is constructed programmatically, and data is sent across to the other service. In more complex scenarios, we will have to get to the details of the HTTP APIs provided by RestTemplate or even to APIs at a much lower level.
Feign is a Spring Cloud Netflix library for providing a higher level of abstraction over REST-based service calls. Spring Cloud Feign works on a declarative principle. When using Feign, we write declarative REST service interfaces at the client, and use those interfaces to program the client. The developer need not worry about the implementation ...
Advantages of using Feign over RestTemplate:
Declarative approach: Feign provides a more declarative approach to define and use REST API clients, which can make the code more readable and easier to maintain.
Integrated with Eureka: Feign is integrated with Netflix Eureka for service discovery, making it easier to build and consume APIs in a microservices architecture.
Better error handling: Feign provides better error handling, including support for custom error handling and retries.
Support for multiple encodings: Feign supports multiple encoding types, including JSON, XML, and form data, while RestTemplate only supports JSON and XML.
Disadvantages of using Feign over RestTemplate:
Limited flexibility: Feign provides a more opinionated approach to defining and using REST API clients, which may limit flexibility in certain situations.
Limited control over HTTP request and response: Feign abstracts away some of the low-level details of the HTTP request and response, which can make it harder to control and customize these details if needed.
Lack of official support: Feign is not an officially supported library from Spring, which may be a consideration for some developers or organizations.
We are writing a mostly single-page, client-side app, but server-side/DB endpoints are still required of course, so the natural choice is SpringMVC (since we are a Java / Spring shop).
But this got me thinking why we need the cluttered, very old design for this app:
- Controller layer
- Service layer
- DAO layer
This app is mostly just the client side making AJAX calls with JSON for DB retrieval/persistence. Do I really need to go thru the Controller layer to receive requests, then invoke a Service method, which in turn invokes a DAO method?
At the same time, I don't want to write a REST Service because it could result in overhead and we may not support all of the REST requirements... but is it the right choice here? If I understand correctly, I would still need a RESTController on the presentation layer?
My goal is to just directly hit a Service method or, maybe even more directly, a DAO method. Is that how modern apps are written?
You cannot hit a DAO unless you expose it through an API of some sort that can be invoked remotely by the UI application; as a consequence, you need to write a service.
A convenient way of exposing a service is to either:
Use Spring MVC and use the controllers as stateless endpoints that provide a JSON/Protobuffer/XML sort of payload that is then parsed by your API (with JSON being the simplest option of them all, perhaps) or
Use Spring Boot, which uses Spring MVC under the hood.
Hope this helps and good luck with your project.
I have a spring mvc application which runs correctly,now another colleague wants to call the same functions from another application but he needs REST URL of my functions.
how is it possible to provide the same functionality through spring REST?
is it just with new annotations .please provide some resource to show me how to do it.
when server has a service, only legal clients which had any contracts with server can access it. And clients can use service by the way such as: use RestTemplate to get/post request to URL of service, and clients can get data as JSON, or XML type if you have an equivalent object as this image:
Also, a service can be support as a interface, ex: google search is a service supported by google, but it's not rest service.
If you know each other URL address you can consume each other REST API from java code by using RestTemplate object.
I would advise you to go over the Spring starter guide which deals with that issue, here is the link (Consuming a RESTful Web Service):
https://spring.io/guides/gs/consuming-rest/
I need to build REST-SOAP gateaway between 2 external services
First web services makes SOAP requests and awaits SOAP response. Second service (mine, written in Play Framework 1.2.4) works only using RESTful approach. I don`t want to integrate SOAP related things with second service for many reasons. So I need some third service to act between them.
I have looked into using Spring web-app with Apache Camel, but still can't get the full picture because there are so many modules for Camel. CXF-RS and SOAP components looks promissing, but I can't figure out how to implement proxying using them.
First of all, how to make Camel listen for the specified SOAP request. And then, how to route response from RESTful service back to calling service.
I tried to do it using only spring configuration.
Camel CXF will do the trick for your soap endpoint.
First you need to write an endpoint
#WebService
public interface QuoteInEndpoint {
#WebResult(name = "quote")
public Quote price(#WebParam(name = "symbol") String symbol);
}
Then you need to declare it
<cxf:cxfEndpoint id="quoteIn" address="http://localhost:9002" serviceClass="my.package.QuoteInEndpoint" />
You can then build a route from this endpoint
from("cxf:bean:quoteIn")//
.process(new Processor() {
#Override
public void process(Exchange exchange) throws Exception {
//do whatever you need to get your object and transform it for your rest service
}
})//
.to("http://myplayframeworkserver/myservice")//
Camel will start the route, expose the wsdl of your soap service at localhost:9002, and every soap request will be send to your rest server. The process method can be use to shape your objects to the correct format for your rest service (I assume json). Instead of using a processor, you might use another Camel component to do the job (Camel JSON if you need json)
There is no straight forward way to simply proxy between soap and rest. REST services, is all about resources and CRUD - create/read/update/delete. The payload can be whatever, often JSON, but XML, plain text or any orther format is valid. SOAP is XML only with custom definied methods.
I understand the confusion about all the components related to this in Camel.
There are a few aspects you need to have in mind, while chosing your approach.
How much of the SOAP stack do you really need? Most likely you only want the basic featuers, such as receiving a simple soap-envelope and extract the payload without WS-addressing, ws-security etc. etc.
Do you have a contract first or code first approach? That is, do you have your soap service already definied by java classes/interfaces or do you have a WSDL?
Do you have your camel instance deployed inside a servlet container (which is quite common), such as Tomcat, Jetty or a JavaEE app server? If you, you might need to use that servlet container to handle requests by some reason (to get all requests from the same port/server/Domain name by some reason such as web server virtual host, firewalls etc). Then CXF might ge a bit tricky. Otherwise, camel can put up listeners with the built-in jetty core.
So:
Contract first and camel inside serverletcontainer - I prefer spring-ws, since it's very easy to get started with. spring-ws component. Just do the initial wireing in spring and you do not even need to generate things from a WSDL, just simply point out which soap-action, uri or rootq name to get messages from:
from("spring-ws:soapaction:http://example.com/GetFoo?endpointMapping=#endpointMapping")
then you have the XML.
If you need to host the web service from camel, CXF in payload mode is quite decent and will behave pretty much the same.
from("cxf:somename:http://localhost:8765?wsdl=somewsdlfile.wsdl&dataFormat=PAYLOAD")
If you have the service definied in Java already, you could use the SOAP dataformat with the Jetty component to get a very lightweight solution.
SoapJaxbDataFormat soap = new SoapJaxbDataFormat("com.example.customerservice", new ServiceInterfaceStrategy(CustomerService.class));
from("jetty:http://localhost:9832/soapsrv")
.marshal(soap) // and other transforms here
.to("http://somerestservicehost/srv");
Or. go with the full CXF solution with CXF or CXF-bean. There are plenty of examples on the camel website. But the component is rather large and can be somewhat tricky.
For rest, there are also choices, but that part is more straight forward. Rest is very much about creating some content (by extracting it from the soap message, and perhaps map xml to json), which might be easiest to achieve with some plain old java code. Then just invoke a HTTP endpoint towards your rest server. The HTTP4 or HTTP component will do a lot of this for you.
CXFRS is good if you like CXF, and can provide some help, specifically if you want to model your rest service with classes