I'd like to use WebAPI as my API technology to:
Allow approved companies to enter/retrieve data in my systtem
Create a standard interface for my company's iOS/Android/etc. applications
Does anyone know of best practices for, and mechanisms used to implement, versioning of interfaces. Specifically, I don't want to break backwards compatibility if I make updates to my API. I'd like to know what versioning schemes people use and if WebAPI has any built in mechanisms supporting versioning without the need to set up routes/paths every time a new version is released. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Update
After performing some research I think I know what I want to do, I'm not sure how to do it. Ideally during content negotiation I would like to use a media type passed by the user to specify which version of the API should be used (rather than hard-coding the URL) and hit the corresponding controller.
If you don't want the version to be included in the Url, the way to go is probably to implement IHttpControllerSelector. This blog post should give you a good starting point: Implementing API versioning in ASP.NET Web API
I recommend you take a look at Peter Williams' series of blog posts on versioning REST services. They explain the what and why. For the how, check out Mike Wasson's tutorial on how to create a custom media formatter.
Related
at the company where I work, we use OTRS to schedule tickets and such. But the web interface is not very intuitive and easy to use, particularly on mobile...
Is it possible to create my own mobile version of OTRS? I mean, I can create a website that is mobile optimised and easy to use, but is there an API to communicate with OTRS?
I've only seen simple scripts to create tickets via soap or rest interface, I need to create a ticket, show a list of the user tickets and close them, postpone them...
Thank you in advance
It is very much possible, since the OTRS is Open Source and you can basically do whatever you want with it. You might however underestimate the scope of the task you're talking about. I once thought about doing something like this too, but when you look at the functionality the OTRS is providing in the background and all the little details you need for a working interface you will probably come to the conclusion that it requires a LOT of work.
You could use the Generic Interface to create a Webservice that enables you to access ticket information etc. and build your own Frontend that utilizes the Webservice. I can tell you from experience that there is lots of functionality you need to add to the webservice to create a decent API for your Frontend, because the Information the Generic Interface offers by default is very limited.
Since OTRS Version 5 the software includes an interface with responsive design in order to make it better suited for mobile use. Depending on the version you are currently using you might consider upgrading to it. If you want to check it out first you can have a look at the online-demo they feature on their website: https://www.otrs.com/otrs-demo-trial/
If you like the concept of the OTRS but the interface makes it difficult to use for you, the founder of the OTRS released a different kind of ticket system called Zammad. You might want to check it out, it's interface is aimed at being more intuitive.
tl;dr
Yes, it's certainly possible - the OTRS is an open system, but very difficult and probably not worth the effort.
My website is up and running with support from Wix.com, I used the drag and drop builder to set it up and I didn't need to do any Client side/Server side programming for it to work.
What should I do if I want to keep the app updated with the website as soon as I upload any article/post on the website.
Consider taking a different approach and migrate to a platform/architecture that better suits your specific case.
My suggestion would be Microweber - it's a pretty advanced platform for websites with CMS and e-commerce features. It's been around for quite some time (3 years or so) and I'm using it for about 12 live active projects.
It's very neat if you plan to write custom code as it's based on Laravel and everything is easily extendable.
However, I'm using it mainly because of the support. Although it's free and open-source the team is online most of the time and have replied to my every request so far.
This is critical for me as many website solutions come and go and none is
perfect. What makes this one better is the reaction time and adequacy.
This is my personal opinion with regard to the fact that it's very hard to pick one solution among so many given that you didn't state more specific requirements.
It cannot be done without any server side scripting and backend database for the mobile app. you need to develop database for it.and then you will need to develop web service for the passing the data between mobile and backend.
A dirty way to do this would be through an HTTP request that reads HTML. However the best way would be through Wix's REST API.
Edit: I'm regards to keeping the app updated, you're going to need a backend service that is consistently checking for updates.
This may sound like a dumb question on the surface, but why does the Hot Towel SPA Template include Breeze at all?
I've been spending the last few days learning Hot Towel and its dependencies, and as far as I can tell, nothing in the template actually uses Breeze. Perhaps that is going to change with some future release?
Sure, Breeze is a good library. But it's bound to CRUD methodology and requires you design your ApiControllers a particular way. (Metadata, SaveChanges, etc.) see here
It also guides you to Entity Framework. While this is more of a soft-dependency, since Breeze also shows a sample without it, it still guides you down a similar pattern of implementation using a modified repository pattern.
If you are using a NoSQL datastore, or CQRS patterns instead of CRUD, then Breeze becomes very difficult to use. There are alternative libraries for data access that work well in this style, such as AmplifyJS.
But the rest of Hot Towel is excellent! I especially like Durandal. So the question begs, if the template isn't actually doing any data access - why include any data access component at all? It would be better to ship it without Breeze, and if the end-user wants to use Breeze, or Amplify, or whatever - then so be it. The rest of Hot Towel would continue to shine as a great SPA implementation.
Matt - Good question. Since I created it I guess I should answer :)
When I built the template I had a focus on providing enough to get folks going with the right tools, and just enough starter code to guide the way. I did not want anyone ripping out code. I'm not a fan of templates that start you down a path and make you remove tons of files and code and change direction. Those are samples.
Samples are good. In fact, samples can be excellent (like the other templates, which I feel are more like samples). Those serve another purpose: to show how you can do things.
Back to the Hot Towel template ...if I include code that uses Breeze, I would be tempted to add a datacontext.js and a model.js on the client. They would contain data access code and code to extend the models on the client. Then I would be tempted to add a controller, some server side models, an ORM and a database. Once there, I'd want to use the data in multiple screens, which leads me to more Knockout and caching with Breeze. Then I might be tempted to add editing, which would lead to change tracking. Soon I have a full blown app. Or more conservatively, I have a sample again. While these approaches would provide more guidance on how to put these together, they would not help you "get started" with a template where you can just start building and adding your own code. If I stop short of some of these features, it's still walking down a road that requires you to change how I did it.
As it stands today, HotTowel is pretty darn close to a template in the truest sense. You create a new project and you are off and adding your own code.
You could argue (and you may be) that Breeze shouldn't be in there since I don't use it in the template. Nor do I use moment.js, BTW. However, I argue that they are both excellent libraries that I would not want to build a CRUD based SPA without them. Breeze is flexible, as you suggest, so you don't have to walk a specific path.
The best way to understand the value of Breeze is to build an app that has its features but without Breeze. Then you can see how much code that takes and how involved it is. For one such example, see my intermediate level SPA course at Pluralsight where I do exactly this: http://jpapa.me/spaps
So you ask "why Breeze?" ... because I strongly recommend it for building a SPA.
Thanks for asking and good luck !
Thanks for asking the question.
John, as author of HT, has offered an answer. I, as a principal of the Breeze project, am inclined to agree with him :)
HotTowel generates a foundation for you to build upon. It is not the building itself.
It is a foundation intended for a specific kind of application, a CRUD application based on a specific set of cooperating JavaScript and ASP.NET technologies. Breeze is a contributor ... but not the only one. Knockout, with its MVVM design and 2-way data binding, is particularly well-suited to the data-entry tasks typical of CRUD apps.
Of course there are other kinds of SPAs. There's an important class of apps that mostly present information and accept little user input. Such apps don't benefit as much from data binding and the people who write them can get pretty hostile about data binding in general and KO in particular.
My point is that HT targets a particular class of application ... one that happens to be immensely successful at least when measured by sustained popularity. It delivers the goods for people who build those apps. It may not be the right starting place for other kinds of apps.
It is true that the easy road to Breeze runs through Web API, EF, and a relational database. Take those away, and you may writing more code on the server (and a little more on the client). That may be the perfect trade-off for you.
The authors of Breeze would like to make that path easier. I don't think BreezeJS makes it harder. I don't understand your statement "Breeze becomes very difficult to use." Have you tried it?
Your client can communicate with any HTTP resource in any manner you chose. It is pretty easy to use existing Web API controllers (albeit easier with Breeze Web API controllers). You can use amplify.js if you prefer (btw, you can tell Breeze to make AJAX calls with amplify). You don't even have to use the Breeze EntityManager to query and save data if you don't want to.
The rest of BreezeJS may still have value for you. There remains plenty of work to do after you've figured out how you'll retrieve and store data and whether you prefer Entity-ChangeSet style or Command/Query style.
You'll have to find answers to these questions:
How will you shape the raw JSON data into bindable objects?
How will you hold on to these objects and share them across multiple screens without making redundant round-trips to the server?
How will you navigate from one object to a related object as you do when binding an Address to a combobox of StatesAndProvinces?
How will you track changes?
How will you validate them?
How will you store some or all of the data in local storage when the app "tombstones"?
Breeze can help with these chores even if you don't want it to query and save for you.
And if you're answer remains "I'll do all of that myself, thank you" ... well, removing Breeze from your HotTowel project is as easy as:
Uninstall-Package breeze.webapi
I have a running java application which has some APIs, but none of them follow the REST standards. You need to use separate APIs(some are XML/JSON based and others are SMTP based) to achieve CRUS operations.
I really love the MVC architecture and the strict RESTfullness of ROR, so I am thinking to write a API only ROR service using rails-api gem. Is it recommended to write wrappers like this over the existing APIs to provide better REST APIs?
Note: The existing APIs are very old and I don't want to rewrite them from scratch.
Whether or not it's "recommended" depends on your needs, your timeframe, the ROI, etc. There's nothing wrong with writing a RESTful layer over existing APIs, if that's what you're really asking.
I prefer a "regular" API over one that has multiple access methods, irregular access patterns, etc. If I have the time and resources, putting a layer of abstraction over complexity is almost always valuable.
Any thoughts on using Flex to build an RIA for administering a complex rails app?
We are starting to find it difficult using ajax to keep our admin section intuitive and easy for users to work with.
You've got RoR guys working on this program and you've managed to develop a complex rails app that has enough subtleties that the admin section is difficult to use.
The answer to this problem is not to use a different programming language to create a whole nother kinda app to do the admin.
It will help more to get assistance in simplifying and organizing your admin section. Work through some paper sketches to get a better idea of how to present this complexity and maybe reveal complexity as you go along.
Complexity is handled often by using wizards or revealing suboptions as you go along. Spend some time with your users and watch them do their tasks.
With more details I could edit this answer with more specifics.
Try investigating this book:
Flex is certainly worth considering in your scenario. Generally, Flex is more mature development platform than AJAX is so if your server-side data are exposed via some reasonable interface (web services, REST-full services etc.), building a Flex front-end would make sense.
It really depends on your needs - Flex vs. AJAX is an interesting topic on its own.
If you want to use XML for communication then there isn't much you need to do on the rails side. But if you want to use an AMF gateway you will want to checkout RubyAMF.
But I agree with MattK if you just want to redesign your admin section it's not worth adding in Flex. I think you just need to do some usability testing, take that feedback and refractor your interface.
I would only consider using Flex in your situation if you already have Flex developers or if you could outsource that part of your project. The Flex modules simply call web services (written in Ruby or whatever) so there is a very nice separation between the two parts of your project. Since the interface between the two parts is an easily-mockable web service, outsourcing works well. There should be plenty of web shops local to you who could handle the work. An admin site should take only two to three weeks to develop in Flex if the developers are knowledgeable.