Web API and Dynamic Data Access

In .NET Rocks episode 855, Jeff Fritz commented on ASP.NET Web API being somewhat confusing in terms of its intended use. I don’t tend to agree, but I thought I would address one point he made in particular: that Web API is perhaps just another form of repository.

Web API is much more than a repository. And yes, it is indeed a protocol mapping layer. As Uncle Bob once noted, a web or api front end is just a mapping layer and is not really your application.

In many cases, however, one could argue that a web-api-as-repository is a fairly solid use case. OData is a great example. However, I was thinking of yet another argument I’ve heard for dynamic languages: when you are just going from web to database and back, you are not really working with types.

In that spirit, I set out to write a simple Web API using SQL and JSON with no explicit class definitions. You can see the results in this gist:

I used Dapper to simplify the data access, though I just as well could have used Massive, PetaPoco, or Simple.Data. Mostly I wanted to use SQL, so I went with Dapper.

I also model bind to a JObject, which I immediately cast to dynamic. I use an anonymous object to supply the values for the parameters in the SQL statements, casting the fields from the dynamic object to satisfy Dapper.

All in all, I kinda like this. Everything is tiny, and I can work directly with SQL, which doesn’t bother me one bit. I have a single class to manage my data access and API translation, but the ultimate goal of each method is still small: retrieve data and present it over HTTP. That violates SRP, but I don’t mind in this case. The code above is not very testable, but with an API like this I’d be more inclined to do top level testing anyway. It’s just not deep enough to require a lot of very specific, low-level testing, IMHO.

Also, note again that this is just retrieving data and pushing it up through an API. This is not rocket science. An F# type provider over SQL would give a good enough sanity check. Why bother generating a bunch of types?

Which brings up another point for another post: what would I do if I needed to add some logic to process or transform the data I retrieved?

As a future exercise, I want to see what it would take to cap this with the Web API OData extensions. That could be fun.

Nested Controllers in the Latest Web API Source

I just happened to drop over to the ASP.NET Web Stack and noticed that nested controllers are now allowed in Web API! This is terrific news for you F# developers who, like me, think that grouping related functionality, including controllers, within modules is a convenient practice. Note, that this is only in the source. You won’t be able to update your NuGet packages to get this functionality, though it is easy to replace the offending DefaultHttpControllerTypeResolver with this updated copy:

Replace DefaultHttpControllerTypeResolver
config.Services.Replace(typeof(IHttpControllerTypeResolver), new MyHttpControllerTypeResolver())

The Origin of RESTful URLs

For at least the past year, I have repeatedly found my appreciation for the literal offended by the term “RESTful URLs.” I recently spent a bit of time trying to explain how this term is oxymoronic on the Web API Forums. While URIs are important as a means of identifying unique resources, REST doesn’t specify any other requirements for URIs. I often note that a RESTful URI could be a GUID. While this is certainly not very meaningful to humans, it satisfies the REST constraints.

While pondering nested resources in Web API yet again, I realized where I think this term originates. Ruby on Rails used the term “RESTful routing” to describe their approach to building Controllers along the line of resources and using a convention to route controllers in a hierarchy based on the controller name. The goal, I think, was to correctly model and mount resources at unique URIs. However, you get what I would call “pretty URLs” for free.

If you use the term “RESTful URLs,” please stop. While RESTful Routing makes sense, RESTful URLs are just nonsense. Do use “RESTful Routing.” Do use “Pretty URLs.” Just don’t confuse your terms. Thanks!

New Names for Old Things

[This is the third in a series started long ago on the use of MVC for building web “applications”.]

I’m glad I’m only getting back to this series now. I’ve had an opportunity to build many more web applications and have a much better appreciation for the poor terminology used to define web applications. For starters, this MV? business silly. We’ll get to that.

I know I’m a bit of an extremist in some things. Specifically, I like things to mean what they mean. When we abuse terms, we don’t communicate well. REST. There, I said it. I feel better. Stop using the term. Most people have a wrong idea of what it means b/c of all the silliness that has been done in its name. I don’t claim to know exactly myself. I don’t think it’s possible to rescue the term from the abuses heaped upon it. There, you see? I’m an extremist.

Now that we’ve covered that, on to MVC. I’m not sure who decided this was an accurate description for what happens on the server-side of the web, but it’s just flat wrong. As noted previously, HTTP uses a functional interface. It’s an IO-bound Request -> Response function. Can you use patterns on either side to help maintainability? Certainly! Just don’t confuse things. Let’s start with Views.


What is a view?

The [view or viewport] is responsible for mapping graphics onto a device.
A viewport typically has a one to one correspondence with a display surface
and knows how to render to it. A viewport attaches to a model and renders
its contents to the display surface. In addition, when the model changes,
the viewport automatically redraws the affected part of the image to reflect
those changes. […] there can be multiple viewports onto the same model and
each of these viewports can render the contents of the model to a different
display surface.

If a view was merely a serialization of a model, this would make sense for building web applications. Unfortunately, there’s a problem. The definition suggests that the view automatically updates whenever the model changes. How do you do that with HTTP? HTTP doesn’t define any mechanism for hooking up observation of a server model. Before you say JavaScript, consider first the current use of View, or even UI. People commonly mean HTML. HTML is not a UI. HTML is a serialization format. The client (normally a browser) must interpret that HTML. Many of you will remember when that wasn’t so standard.

Can we achieve MVC today? Possibly. You might be able to leverage web sockets to reach across a client/server architecture such as that presented by HTTP. However, you are more likely to find that “MVC” on the server is just limiting. You are typically better off building a sort of restricted data access service, a.k.a Web API (subtle hint). There’s really no point in trying to enrich a serialization format to make it work more like true MVC across the client and server.


This is no different than routing. Instead of calling your Router a Controller, you split them up. However, most frameworks really just use the router as a top level dispatcher and the controller as a lower-level dispatcher. Otherwise, I’d say web frameworks stay a lot closer to the original meaning than a lot of the other MV? patterns. (Hence the ?, of course.)


This really is the crux. HTML is a model. I noted this last time. It’s just a serialization of data you want displayed. It happens to be a lot richer, but it’s still just a data model. HTML is a great way to bootstrap an application that otherwise uses JavaScript as a model serialization format. If you want to disagree, ask why HTML5 removes the presentation elements. Why has layout and style moved to CSS? CSS and the browser define the actual rendering. In a no-script web application, you don’t have to build a view. You get it for free.


So what? Am I just ranting that I don’t like how people abuse terms? Possibly. However, I think this goes deeper. When you allow the slippery slope, you get caught on it, as well. It’s inevitable. The bigger, lurking danger is that we start to confuse useful patterns and use them in the wrong places. Many people use MVC frameworks today to build web APIs. However, that’s not MVC. So if you then switch to a desktop app to write MVC applications, you are either confused or delighted to find that it’s so much richer.

I don’t know what I would call what we build for the web; I know I wouldn’t call it MVC. In my experiments with Frank, I’ve found that writing simple functions and nesting them with rules makes a very easy mechanism for building web APIs. I think that would essentially just be a Command pattern. Simple, elegant, and very easy to understand. YMMV.

Web API RC Released

If you have been trying out ASP.NET Web API, you will be happy to know that the RC is finally available. No more struggling with building the sources yourself or fumbling with installing the nightlies to the GAC. Henrik has posted a few articles on the changes, as well as a follow up to using the nightlies with the RC release, if you must. One final note: the assembly names have changed, I assume to allow you to install the MVC4 for VS2010 alongside a VS11 installation, which was previously not possible.

The Functional Nature of Web API

Since my last post on the functional nature of the web, I’ve given two presentations describing this idea in more detail. Unfortunately, circumstances have conspired against me such that I have been unable to build any good sample apps. That’s about to change, as I’ve started working on screencasts on Web API that I’ll be posting here and on fpish.net as I complete them.

As a preview, In this post I’ll describe the inherent functional nature of Web API. You have looked into Web API at all, you’ve probably seen the Contact Manager sample application, originally created by the infamous “2C”. (Kudos to Dan Roth on the Web API team for keeping it alive!) The controller-based goodness baked into Web API hides a lot of the functional nature, so I will understand if you think I’m a little crazy for my statement above.

See? Not so much? Okay, how about in F#?

type MyMessageHandler() =
    inherit System.Net.Http.HttpMessageHandler()
    override x.SendAsync(request, cancellationToken) =
        (* Implementation ... *)

Eh, let’s try again.

val app : HttpRequestMessage -> Async<HttpResponseMessage>
let app request = async { return response }

let makeHandler app =
    { new System.Net.Http.HttpMessageHandler() with
        override x.SendAsync(request, cancellationToken) =
            Async.StartAsTask <| app request }

Here I use several unique features of F# to emphasize the point. The type signature should be familiar from my last post. I then create a handler using F#’s object initialization syntax, which creates an instance from a base class using the app from above. I think I’ve made my point that, at its heart, the HttpMessageHandler is functional in its core.

Okay, let’s translate back to C#-land. We don’t have object initialization syntax, but we can create pure, functional approaches for C#. Also, we’ll use DelegatingHandler, as that’s the actual type you’ll need to inherit in order to use it in Web API. (I apologize now for making your eyes bleed with the type signatures.)

Why is this core?

I’ve mentioned this is core, but if you’ve only used Web API with controllers, you may never have interacted with HttpMessageHandlers. HttpMessageHandlers are at the root of everything. HttpClient, HttpServer, and everything else that uses these types all inherit HttpMessageHandler. If you look deep into Web API, you find this consistency of HttpMessageHandler at the core. What does that mean? It means “it’s [functions] all the way down.”

A quick example

You can see this in action in the AspNetWebApi.Conneg sample application.

Okay, so now we have our “function.” How would you hook this up? That’s also quite simple. HttpApplication now has a GlobalConfiguration courtesy System.Web.Http. This provides you access to an instance of HttpConfiguration, which provides you all the extensibility points for managing your Web API. The Self Host option let’s you create your own. Attaching a handler is dead simple:

The point

By no means am I trying to convince you to give up all the ease of built-in model binding and conneg. I only want to drive home the point that the core of Web API is really just functions. As I mentioned previously, HTTP exhibits a very strong functional side. Web API really addresses this head on and provides a very solid core for building web applicaitons, whether using a more MVC-style or functions directly.

Try it out. For really simple applications, you are likely to find that these are all you need. You may also appreciate that you can implement your own routing and other mechanisms directly within a composed set of functions. We’ll explore this more as we continue in this series, so stay tuned.