I'm developing a reactive service and preparing to use the WebClient to exchange with HTTP APIs,but the service is not in a reactive web stack so how can I use it(WebClient) without depending on Webflux or is there any alternative reactive HTTP client?
Thanks in advance.
I am not sure if I get your question correct: You want to use an inherently reactive class without the reactive lib in which it is contained?
As you can see via the link you put in your question, the WebClient is part of spring-webflux and depends e.g. on reactor.core.publisher.Mono which resides in compile("io.projectreactor:reactor-core"). I can not imagine any scenario in which this WebClient would work or make any sense as you've asked "without depending on Webflux".
Other reactive HTTP clients are:
RxHttpClient
Java HTTP Client introduced in Java 11
May be you could elaborate a little bit more on your needs, why you won't rely on WebFlux or why you want to use a reactive client in a non-reactive stack.
Related
I am creating a Spring Boot MVC application, with Tomcat and JDBC. My app will be an API client, I've learned that I'll need RestTemplate class for API requests. But since Spring 5, RestTemplate is in maintenance mode and will be deprecated in the future.
The alternative is a WebClient class, which is powerful and useful for testing also. But it supports a reactive WebFlux stack.
For example, when I watched this tutorial on how to make tests with WebClient I was very confused:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGK9Hf8cnBw
I must use these Mono and Flux types?
My first question is, can I use WebClient to make a classic servlet-based app (with Tomcat, and JDBC/JPA like I used to)?
If not, what is an alternative to WebClient and RestTemplate?
WebClient can be used in synchronous style by blocking at the end for the result like this:
Person project = client.get().uri("/project/{id}", i).retrieve()
.bodyToMono(Project.class)
.block();
List<Person> projects = client.get().uri("/projects").retrieve()
.bodyToFlux(Project.class)
.collectList()
.block();
Here we use block() to block the stream and get the data out of it. Note that this shouldn’t be used in a reactive environment.
This is late but someone might benefit from this.. You can use open feign.. Check it out
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.
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.
In a Spring Boot (2.2.2.RELEASE) application, I have reactive endpoints (returning Mono or Flux), each of them is using reactive WebClient for calling another service. This "other" service is legacy (non-reactive) one.
Here is my question:
Is there a benefit of using Webflux (reactive WebClient) if my reactive endpoint is calling this non-reactive endpoint which does blocking stuff?
Is my reactive endpoint still reactive?
If we're talking about HTTP endpoints, we can call them with blocking or non-blocking (asynchronous) clients, but not fully reactive.
If your "new" application is reactive, you have to use non-blocking client (WebClient in your case), otherwise you will block NIO-threads and loose all the advantages of the reactive approach. The fact that the “other” application is blocking doesn't matter, you can still get a less resource-intensive "new" application.
They are
1. Not fully.
2. Your request is not full reactive until you change legacy APIs
Explanation:
End-to-End Reactive pattern only help into to the performance side
Currently you’re using reactive client this helps to connect to server in two way communication.
First set of APIs are reactive so web server layer is now reactive but data layer (Legacy APIs ) not reactive
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.