From the perpective of Restful Apis, its said its a good choice to design them hierarchical when your database is hierarchical too, above all because the client learns and knows the hierarchical structure of the entities. I mean, for instance, if you have bank clients and accounts, the parent entity would be the clients and the child entities would be the accounts. So :
To get the accounts from the client 1, a right URI could be something like "/clients/1/accounts"
From the perspective of Spring controllers, I should have a ClientController and a AccountController but
The AccountController should process the above request, right?
Could I specify and URI like "accounts/?clientId=1"? Its a bad design?
If I go with the option 1, how to specify this URI in the AccountsController?? If not, should I create another controller just for this and not put this URI in the Account controller?
#RequestMapping("/clients")
public class ClientsController{ }
#RequestMapping("/accounts")
public class AccountsController{
#RequestMapping("/clients/{idClient}/accounts") => **I cannot specify
an absolute path here because
its relative to the RequestMapping annotation in the Controller**
#GetMapping
public #ResponseBody List<Account> getAccounts(){}
}
Thanks!!
There's no hard bound rules it's matter of choice and use cases that decides how we structure our rest uris and using query param or path variables is for constructing meaningful and readable uris.
Suppose if you have.usecase is like to get the list of accounts needs a client ID as mandatory then construct:
GET /clients/{id}/accounts
And put it in clients controller.
But if your usecase is like client id is not mandatory to get list of accounts then construct:
GET /accounts?clientid=1
And put it in accounts controller. Now you can choose to make clientid as required=false request param.
Don't construct deeply nested APIs.. make dumb endpoints eventually you'll end up facing usecases where you'll need to create non nested uris.
Related
I have question about controllers. Always when i working with controller im start to declare #RequestMapping for example if have UserController then is #RequestMapping("/user");
What if i want to declare another path in this same controller? For example im have #GetMapping("/info") and i will get info about user, but what if i want to declare on this same controller path localhost:8080/topic/blablabla? Is another solution than delete #RequestMapping from controller and make on every Get/PostMapping another path?
Defining a #RequestMapping at the controller level; it means narrowing it down to your criteria.
You can use the #RequestMapping annotation to map requests to controllers methods. It has various attributes to match by URL, HTTP method, request parameters, headers, and media types. You can use it at the class level to express shared mappings or at the method level to narrow down to a specific endpoint mapping. Read More
It is good you want to do, sometimes I need it too but as far as I research it is not supported now.
I have a User class and I want to authorize access such that only a user gets to see what he is entitled to.
This was easily achievable using Spring Security in conjunction with Spring Data Rest where in JPA Repository I did below -
public interface UserRepository extends JPARepository<User,Integer> {
#PreAuthorize("hasRole('LOGGED_IN') and principal.user.id == #id")
User findOne(#Param("id") Integer id);
}
In this way, a user when visits to Spring Data REST scaffolded URLs like -
/users/{id}
/users/{id}/userPosts
Only those logged in with {id} get to see these and everyone else gets 401 like I would have wanted.
My problem is that I have one of Projections which is a public view of each user and I am crating it using Spring Data Rest projections as below which I want to be accessible for every {id}
#Projection(name = "details", types = User.class)
public interface UserDetailsProjection {
..
}
So, /users/{id1}?projection=details as well as /users/{id2}?projection=details should give 200 OK and show data even though user is logged in by {id1}
I began implementing this by marking projection with #PreAuthorize("permitAll") but that won't work since Repository has harder security check. Can we have this functionality where for a projection we can relax security ?
I am using latest Spring Data Rest and Spring Security distributions
Seems reasonable to add a custom controller for this use-case.
Please also consider:
Evaluate access in projections using #Value annotations
Add another entity for the same database data but with different field set for read-only operations, e.g. using inheritance (be careful with caching, etc.) - depends on your data storage type
Modify model to split User entity into two different entities (profile, account) since they seem to have different access and possibly even operations
You can also add a ResourceProcessor<UserSummaryProjection> to evaluate access programmatically and replace resource content (projection) with a DTO
Example of evaluating access in projections with #Value annotations:
#Projection(types = User.class, name = "summary")
public interface UserSummaryProjection {
#Value("#{#userSecurity.canReadEmail(target) ? target.email: null}")
String getEmail();
}
Added spring security code in the data access layer is not a good idea. I would suggest you to add the #PreAuthorize annotation to the controller/service method. Since you have a query parameter, ?projection=details, you can have separate controller/service method for the details projection.
Add following to your details projection method:
#RequestMapping("/url", params = {"projection"})
#PreAuthorize("hasRole('LOGGED_IN') and principal.user.id == #id")
Currently my app looks at router parameter and logged in user (Principal.Identity) to authorize access to certain resources (e.g: Add student to your class [identity + class id]). However, If I'm not wrong, breeze js support just one bulk save. It seems to be that I will have to open each and every data and run through the validation/authorization. That is fine,
but what I may lose is nice separation of cross cutting concern out side my business logic (as a message handler) (finding what roles user has on the class) and nice Authroize annotation feature (just say what roles are needed). So do I have to trade off or is there better programming model which Breeze JS might suggest?
Update:
My question is more on how to separate the authorization (find assigned roles in message handler + verify if required roles are present by adding authorize attribute to controller methods) logic from business or data access logic. Without breeze, I will inspect the incoming message and its route parameter to fetch all its roles then in my put/post/delete methods I would annotate with required roles. I cannot use this technique with breeze (its not breeze's limitation, its trade off when you go for bulk save). So wanted to know if there is any programming model or design pattern already used by breeze guys. There is something on breeze's samples which is overriding context and using repository pattern, will follow that for now.
Breeze can have as many 'save' endpoints as you want. For example, a hypothetical server implementation might be
[BreezeController]
public class MyController : ApiController {
[HttpPost]
[Authorize(...)]
public SaveResult SaveCustomersAndOrders(JObject saveBundle) {
// CheckCustomersAndOrders would be a custom method that validates your data
ContextProvider.BeforeSaveEntitiesDelegate = CheckCustomerAndOrders;
return ContextProvider.SaveChanges(saveBundle);
}
[HttpPost]
[Authorize]
public SaveResult SaveSuppliersAndProducts(JObject saveBundle) {
...
}
You would call these endpoints like this
var so = new SaveOptions({ resourceName: "SaveWithFreight2", tag: "freight update" });
myEntityManager.saveChanges(customerAndOrderEntities, {
resourceName: "SaveCustomersAndOrder" }
).then(...)
or
myEntityManager.saveChanges(supplierAndProductEntities, {
resourceName: "SaveSuppliersAndProducts" }
).then(...)
Authorization is mediated via the [Authorize] attribute on each of the [HttpPost] methods. You can read more about the [Authorize] attribute here:
http://sixgun.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/asp-net-web-api-basic-authentication/
The proper way to do this IMHO is to separate the endpoint authorization and the database actions authorization.
First, create an entity that manages the grands per controller/method and role. For each method you have a value allowed - not allowed for the specific role. You create a special attribute (subclass of Authorize) that you apply to your controllers (breeze or plain web api) that reads the data and decides whether the specific endpoint can be called for the user/role. Otherwise it throws the Unauthorized exception.
On the breeze side (client) you extend the default adapter settings with a method that adds the authentication headers from identity that you received at login, something like this :
var origAjaxCtor = breeze.config.getAdapterInstance('ajax');
$.extend(true, origAjaxCtor.defaultSettings, Security.getAuthenticationHeaders());
On the server, add a second entity that manages the authorization for the CRUD operations. You need a table like (EntityName, AllowInsert, AllowUpdate, AllowDelete). Add a BeforeSave event on the Context Manager or on the ORM (EF or something else) that loops all entities and applies the policy specified on the table above.
This way you have a clear separation of the endpoint logic from the backend CRUD logic.
In all cases the authorization logic should first be implemented server side and if needed should be pushed to the clients.
The way breeze is implemented and with the above design you should not need more than 1 save endpoint.
Hope it helps.
However, If I'm not wrong, breeze js support just one bulk save.
That is entirely wrong. You have free reign to create your own save methods. Read the docs, it's all there.
I'm currently working on a spring based web application and have a special requirement that seems not (at least not out of the box) be provided by spring MVC. The application serves data for multiple users each organized in their own "company". Once a user has logged in, I'm able to identify to which company he belongs to.
The application itself is built with multiple "modules", each with it's own domain objects, DAO, Service and Controller classes. The idea behind this concept is that I can for example extend a certain controller class (let's say to use a different service class) based upon the user and here is my problem.
Since i do not want to change my request paths for certain users, I'm currently looking for a way how to serve a request issued on a certain request path with different instances of a controller based upon the user issuing the request.
I came up with the idea to attach a HTTP Header Field for the company
Example:
X-Company:12345
and have my controllers configured like this:
#Controller
#RequestMapping(value="/foo/")
public class FooController {
// ...
}
#Controller
#RequestMapping(value="/foo" headers="X-Company=12345")
public class SpecialFooController extends FooController {
// ...
}
However this is not possible, since spring MVC treats each header (except Content-Type and Accept) as a kind of restriction, so in my case it would handle all requests with the FooController instead of the SpecialFooController unless i add a "headers" restriction on the FooController as well, which is not practicable.
Is there some way how to customize this behaviour or some direction one could point me to look for? Or maybe someone has another idea how to achieve this. It'll be highly appreciated.
Thanks!
I'am not sure but I think you can do this with HandlerMapping. Have a look at the documentation
To take your own suggestion, you can use the #RequestHeader annotation in your controller methods:
#Controller
public class MyController {
#RequestMapping("/someAction")
public void myControllerMethod(#RequestHeader('X-Company-Id') String companyId) {
}
}
Or you could use #PathVariable:
#Controller
public class MyController {
#RequestMapping("/{companyId}/someAction")
public void myControllerMethod(#PathVariable("companyId") String companyId) {
}
}
Using this approach would mean that it is in fact different URLs for each company, but if you can set the company id header, I guess you also can suffix the URLs with the company id.
But there are also other possibilities. You could write an interceptor that puts the company id in a session or request variable. Then you wouldn't have to add the annotation to every controller method. You could also use a subdomain for each company, but that wouldn't look too pretty if the company id is a random alphanumeric string. E.g: companyone.mydomain.com, companytwo.mydomain.com
Edit
#RequestMapping can be added to the controller level as you know, so you should be able to do
#Controller
#RequestMapping("/controller/{companyId}")
as the base url, if that's a better option.
I was able to meet the requirement by making usage of a customized RequestCondition. By defining your own annotation that can be placed at the type and method level of a controller. Extending the RequestMappingHandlerMapping by your own implementation and overriding the getCustomTypeCondition() and getCustomMethodCondition() methods translates a controller annotation into your own RequestCondition.
When a request comes in, the custom RequestCondition will be evaluated and the annotated controller(method) will then be called to serve the request. However this has the downside, that one needs to remove a servlet-context.xml file and switch to the WebMvcConfigurationSupport class instead in order to be able to use your customized RequestMappingHandlerMapping class.
This question was also discussed here.
Edit:
A pretty good example using this can be found here.
What do you think about exposing domain entities through services? I tried it in an application, but I came to the conclusion that exposing domain model to the client is not such a good idea.
Advantages:
Really easy to transport data from-to client
List item
(De)Serialization is really easy: just put jackson in the classpath and it will handle it. No extra logic is needed.
No need to duplicate entities POJOs. At least in early stages, the API resources will be pretty much the same as the domain model.
Disadvantages:
The API's get very tightly coupled to the model and you can't change the model without affecting the API
Partial responses. There are cases where you don't want to return all the fields of the entities, just some of them. How do you accomplish it?
So, let's take the following REST example. The following API declares that GET on the user resource returns the following information.
GET
/users/12
{
"firstName":"John",
"lastName":"Poe"
"address":"my street"
}
Usually, I would create a User entity, a user service to return the user and a REST controller to serve the request like this:
#RequestMapping("/users/{id}")
public #ResponseBody User getUser(#PathVariable Long id) {
return userService.findById(id);
}
Should I avoid returning the User entity?
If yes, should I create another class and handle myself the mapping between this class and the entity?
Is there a pattern for this?
How to accomplish partial expansion? (i.e. return only the firstName and lastName for the user)
P.S: using #JSONFilter and ObjectMapper to accomplish partial responses seems too heavyweight to me because you loose the beauty of spring data