Transactions in REST?

Question

I'm wondering how you'd implement the following use-case in REST. Is it even possible to do without compromising the conceptual model?

Read or update multiple resources within the scope of a single transaction. For example, transfer $100 from Bob's bank account into John's account.

As far as I can tell, the only way to implement this is by cheating. You could POST to the resource associated with either John or Bob and carry out the entire operation using a single transaction. As far as I'm concerned this breaks the REST architecture because you're essentially tunneling an RPC call through POST instead of really operating on individual resources.

Answer 1

You must not use server side transactions in REST.

One of the REST contraints:

Stateless

The client–server communication is further constrained by no client context being stored on the server between requests. Each request from any client contains all of the information necessary to service the request, and any session state is held in the client.

The only RESTful way is to create a transaction redo log and put it into the client state. With the requests the client sends the redo log and the server redoes the transaction and

1. rolls the transaction back but provides a new transaction redo log (one step further)
2. or finally complete the transaction.

But maybe it's simpler to use a server session based technology which supports server side transactions.

Answer 2

Great question, REST is mostly explained with database-like examples, where something is stored, updated, retrieved, deleted. There are few examples like this one, where the server is supposed to process the data in some way. I don't think Roy Fielding included any in his thesis, which was based on http after all.

But he does talk about "representational state transfer" as a state machine, with links moving to the next state. In this way, the documents (the representations) keep track of the client state, instead of the server having to do it. In this way, there is no client state, only state in terms of which link you are on.

I've been thinking about this, and it seems to me reasonable that to get the server to process something for you, when you upload, the server would automatically create related resources, and give you the links to them (in fact, it wouldn't need to automatically create them: it could just tell you the links, and it only create them when and if you follow them - lazy creation). And to also give you links to create new related resources - a related resource has the same URI but is longer (adds a suffix). For example:

1. You upload (POST) the representation of the concept of a transaction with all the information. This looks just like a RPC call, but it's really creating the "proposed transaction resource". e.g URI: /transaction Glitches will cause multiple such resources to be created, each with a different URI.
2. The server's response states the created resource's URI, its representation - this includes the link (URI) to create the related resource of a new "committed transaction resource". Other related resources are the link to delete the proposed transaction. These are states in the state-machine, which the client can follow. Logically, these are part of the resource that has been created on the server, beyond the information the client supplied. e.g URIs: /transaction/1234/proposed, /transaction/1234/committed
3. You POST to the link to create the "committed transaction resource", which creates that resource, changing the state of the server (the balances of the two accounts)**. By its nature, this resource can only be created once, and can't be updated. Therefore, glitches committing many transactions can't occur.
4. You can GET those two resources, to see what their state is. Assuming that a POST can change other resources, the proposal would now be flagged as "committed" (or perhaps, not available at all).

This is similar to how webpages operate, with the final webpage saying "are you sure you want to do this?" That final webpage is itself a representation of the state of the transaction, which includes a link to go to the next state. Not just financial transactions; also (eg) preview then commit on wikipedia. I guess the distinction in REST is that each stage in the sequence of states has an explicit name (its URI).

In real-life transactions/sales, there are often different physical documents for different stages of a transaction (proposal, purchase order, receipt etc). Even more for buying a house, with settlement etc.

OTOH This feels like playing with semantics to me; I'm uncomfortable with the nominalization of converting verbs into nouns to make it RESTful, "because it uses nouns (URIs) instead of verbs (RPC calls)". i.e. the noun "committed transaction resource" instead of the verb "commit this transaction". I guess one advantage of nominalization is you can refer to the resource by name, instead of needing to specify it in some other way (such as maintaining session state, so you know what "this" transaction is...)

But the important question is: What are the benefits of this approach? i.e. In what way is this REST-style better than RPC-style? Is a technique that's great for webpages also helpful for processing information, beyond store/retrieve/update/delete? I think that the key benefit of REST is scalability; one aspect of that is not needing to maintain client state explicitly (but making it implicit in the URI of the resource, and the next states as links in its representation). In that sense it helps. Perhaps this helps in layering/pipelining too? OTOH only the one user will look at their specific transaction, so there's no advantage in caching it so others can read it, the big win for http.

Answer 3

In REST terms, resources are nouns that can be acted on with CRUD (create/read/update/delete) verbs. Since there is no "transfer money" verb, we need to define a "transaction" resource that can be acted upon with CRUD. Here's an example in HTTP+POX. First step is to CREATE (HTTP POST method) a new empty transaction:

POST /transaction

This returns a transaction ID, e.g. "1234" and according URL "/transaction/1234". Note that firing this POST multiple times will not create the same transaction with multiple IDs and also avoids introduction of a "pending" state. Also, POST can't always be idempotent (a REST requirement), so it's generally good practice to minimize data in POSTs.

You could leave the generation of a transaction ID up to the client. In this case, you would POST /transaction/1234 to create transaction "1234" and the server would return an error if it already existed. In the error response, the server could return a currently unused ID with an appropriate URL. It's not a good idea to query the server for a new ID with a GET method, since GET should never alter server state, and creating/reserving a new ID would alter server state.

Next up, we UPDATE (PUT HTTP method) the transaction with all data, implicitly committing it:

PUT /transaction/1234
<transaction>
  <from>/account/john</from>
  <to>/account/bob</to>
  <amount>100</amount>
</transaction>

If a transaction with ID "1234" has been PUT before, the server gives an error response, otherwise an OK response and a URL to view the completed transaction.

NB: in /account/john , "john" should really be John's unique account number.

Answer 4

I've drifted away from this topic for 10 years. Coming back, I can't believe the religion masquerading as science that you wade into when you google rest+reliable. The confusion is mythic.

I would divide this broad question into three:

• Downstream services. Any web service you develop will have downstream services that you use, and whose transaction syntax you have no choice but to follow. You should try and hide all this from users of your service, and make sure all parts of your operation succeed or fail as a group, then return this result to your users.
• Your services. Clients want unambiguous outcomes to web-service calls, and the usual REST pattern of making POST, PUT or DELETE requests directly on substantive resources strikes me as a poor, and easily improved, way of providing this certainty. If you care about reliability, you need to identify action requests. This id can be a guid created on the client, or a seed value from a relational DB on the server, it doesn't matter. For server generated ID's, a request-response is dedicated to exchanging the id. If this request fails or half succeeds, no problem, the client just repeats the request. Unused ids do no harm.
  
  This is important because it lets all subsequent requests be fully idempotent, in the sense that if they are repeated n times they return the same result and cause nothing further to happen. The server stores all responses against the action id, and if it sees the same request, it replays the same response. A fuller treatment of the pattern is in this google doc. The doc suggests an implementation that, I believe(!), broadly follows REST principals. Experts will surely tell me how it violates others. This pattern can be usefully employed for any unsafe call to your web-service, whether or not there are downstream transactions involved.
• Integration of your service into "transactions" controlled by upstream services. In the context of web-services, full ACID transactions are considered as usually not worth the effort, but you can greatly help consumers of your service by providing cancel and/or confirm links in your confirmation response, and thus achieve transactions by compensation.

Your requirement is a fundamental one. Don't let people tell you your solution is not kosher. Judge their architectures in the light of how well, and how simply, they address your problem.

Answer 5

Consider a RESTful shopping basket scenario. The shopping basket is conceptually your transaction wrapper. In the same way that you can add multiple items to a shopping basket and then submit that basket to process the order, you can add Bob's account entry to the transaction wrapper and then Bill's account entry to the wrapper. When all the pieces are in place then you can POST/PUT the transaction wrapper with all the component pieces.

Answer 6

There are a few important cases that aren't answered by this question, which I think is too bad, because it has a high ranking on Google for the search terms :-)

Specifically, a nice propertly would be: If you POST twice (because some cache hiccupped in the intermediate) you should not transfer the amount twice.

To get to this, you create a transaction as an object. This could contain all the data you know already, and put the transaction in a pending state.

POST /transfer/txn
{"source":"john's account", "destination":"bob's account", "amount":10}

{"id":"/transfer/txn/12345", "state":"pending", "source":...}

Once you have this transaction, you can commit it, something like:

PUT /transfer/txn/12345
{"id":"/transfer/txn/12345", "state":"committed", ...}

{"id":"/transfer/txn/12345", "state":"committed", ...}

Note that multiple puts don't matter at this point; even a GET on the txn would return the current state. Specifically, the second PUT would detect that the first was already in the appropriate state, and just return it -- or, if you try to put it into the "rolledback" state after it's already in "committed" state, you would get an error, and the actual committed transaction back.

As long as you talk to a single database, or a database with an integrated transaction monitor, this mechanism will actually work just fine. You might additionally introduce time-outs for transactions, which you could even express using Expires headers if you wanted to.