...
Design Thoughts and Questions
How much Hypermedia?
The API we are going to expose in our 1.0 pass at web services is entirely about doing CRUD on a data store. We're not dealing with any application flow or business logic. As such we will aim for level "2.5" of the Richardson Maturity Model (described by Martin Fowler here) and ignore the idea of embedding state transitions in our resources. Is this a mistake?. Resources will include links to URIs of other resources, but not phrased as "rel"s. (We want to support json, we and we're not describing meaningful business-process in those links.)
We will allow Spring to automatically transform our results to json or xml depending on the HTTP request. This probably prevents us from having a proper DAP or XSD.
Is this a mistake?
Standard CRUD pattern as applied to our API
We'll be following (mostly) standard practice with HTTP methods for domain object CRUD:
...
Action | URI | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|
Search | GET /ws/rest/patient?q=name+or+identifier |
...
success = 200 OK with a list of minimal patient representations as content | ||
Create | POST /ws/rest/patient | success = 201 CREATED; Location: "uri-of-resource", content: default rep of created patient |
Retrieve | GET /ws/rest/patient/uuid.json |
...
success: 200 OK; content: default json representation of patient | |
Update | POST /ws/rest/patient/uuid |
...
|
...
= only properties |
...
you want to |
...
update, e.g. |
...
|
...
success = 204 NO CONTENT | |
Soft Delete | DELETE /ws/rest/patient/uuid |
- this actually means "mark deleted" in OpenMRS
...
success = 204 NO CONTENT | |
Hard Delete | DELETE /ws/rest/patient/uuid?purge=true |
...
success = 204 NO CONTENT |
Questions:
- Is it okay to use a POST to update only parts of a resource (instead of PUT with the complete object)?
- Is there a better way to indicate this special, expose the rarely-used Hard Delete method?
Multiple representations (minimum, default, full, ...)
Our domain objects are often large (e.g. a patient and all their encounters and clinical observations), and contain lots of rarely-interesting book-keeping information (creator, date created, etc), and we expect many clients to be bandwidth-limited. Therefore we want to allow clients to fetch different representations -sized versions of a any resource. For example you could get a "default" patient representation (only :
URI | Content |
|---|---|
/ws/rest/patient/uuid | default representation (not including audit info, including the patient's preferred name |
...
but not aliases, etc) | |
/ws/rest/patient/uuid?v=full | representation including all audit info, all names, all historic addresses, etc. |
/ws/rest/patient/uuid?v=fullwithencounters | full representation plus summaries of all the patient's encounters (this can get very big) |
/ws/rest/patient/uuid?v=ref | minimal representation, just containing a displayable string, the uri of the default rep, and the uuid |
Question: Is this appropriate? If so, what's the right terminology for this? If not, what alternate approach should we be taking?
We also introduce the idea Usually the default representation of a resource will include "Ref", which is a minimal representation of any object, just containing its uuid, a displayable string, and a URI link to the full resource. So for example if I fetch the default representation of a patient, I might get this:
...
ref"-sized versions of other resources, while the full representation includes "default"-sized versions of other resources. For example a patient would include
default | full |
|---|---|
{ |
...
|
...
: |
...
"1050 |
...
Wishard |
...
Blvd., |
...
RG5, |
...
Indianapolis, |
...
IN", |
...
|
...
: |
...
"http://.../ws/rest/person/puuid/ |
...
address/3350d0b5-821c-4e5e-ad1d-a9bce331e118" |
...
|
...
|
...
more |
...
stuff |
...
*/ |
...
|
...
Whereas if I fetch the full representation of a patient I might get:
...
{ |
...
: |
...
{ |
...
|
...
: |
...
"3350d0b5-821c-4e5e-ad1d-a9bce331e118", |
...
|
...
: |
...
"1050 |
...
Wishard |
...
Blvd.", |
...
|
...
: |
...
"RG5", |
...
|
...
: |
...
"Indianapolis", |
...
|
...
: |
...
"IN", |
...
|
...
: |
...
"http://.../ws/rest/person/puuid/ |
...
address/3350d0b5-821c-4e5e-ad1d-a9bce331e118" |
...
|
...
|
...
more |
...
stuff |
...
*/ |
...
A more relevant example of this is that an encounter might contain 100 observations. The default encounter representation would just include a displayable "weight = 70", whereas the full encounter representation would include full details about the "weight" question (e.g. that it's unit is "kg", its range is 0-250, etc).
...
We also have the idea of "sub-resources". Take the For example of a "Program" (e.g. "Tuberculosis Treatment Program") and a "Program Enrollment" (i.e. a patient may be enrolled in a program from date X to date Y). Our plan is that:
...
patient has identifiers. These sub-resources will not get a top-level uri, rather:
list all identifiers for the given patient | GET /ws/rest/ |
...
patient/uuid/identifiers | |
add an identifier to the given patient | POST /ws/rest/patient/ |
...
uuid/ |
...
identifiers | |
fetch/update/delete a specific identifier | GET/POST/DELETE /ws/rest/ |
...
patient/uuid/identifiers/identifier-uuid |
We'll lean towards making things top-level resources rather than sub-resources, for example:
- encounter will be a top-level resource (even though every encounter belongs to a patient) because you might want to search for encounters across different patients, like GET /ws/rest/encounter?from=2011-01-01&to=2011-01-31
- "enrollment" (e.g. the fact that a patient is enrolled in a program or study) will be top-level, instead of /patient/uuid/enrollments or /program/uuid/patients
Does this sound right?
Authentication
A client needs to be authenticated to be able to do anything. We plan to support having the client pass a username/password with every request, or (preferrably) to have the client authenticate by posting to an authentication resource and getting back a token representing a login session. The client would then pass that token in the header of future requests, until it expires.We assume this will be straightforward once we sit down to design and implement it, and we should be worried about thisit (though probably annoying to implement). Any words of warning? Any examples we should look at or obvious technology terms to search for?
...
To create and expose a resource you would have to write two classes:
- https://source.openmrs.org/browse/~br=trunk/Modules/webservices.rest/trunk/omod/src/main/java/org/openmrs/module/webservices/rest/web/resource/PatientResource.java?hb=truePatientResource (contains one-line implementations of getByUniqueId, save, etc, and descriptions of the available representations)
- PatientController (contains short methods to connect Spring MVC's request handling to PatientResource)
We've tried to standardize the way we do CRUD via interfaces (Searchable, Creatable, Retrievable, Updatable, Deletable, Purgeable), and via a base class that helps reflect these interfaces onto our pre-web-service domain objects: DelegatingCrudResource.