Thanks to Brian Delahunty in the TSSG for pointing out that you can now get RSS feeds for weather stations. The nearest one to us is Cork Airport: RSS 2.0 RSS Feed for weather at Cork Airport, Ireland.
You can Choose your nearest weather station.
An interesting O'Reilly article: XML.com: Implementing REST Web Services: Best Practices and Guidelines
Implementing REST Web Services: Best Practices and Guidelines by Hao He August 11, 2004 Despite the lack of vendor support, Representational State Transfer (REST) web services have won the hearts of many working developers. For example, Amazon's web services have both SOAP and REST interfaces, and 85% of the usage is on the REST interface. Compared with other styles of web services, REST is easy to implement and has many highly desirable architectural properties: scalability, performance, security, reliability, and extensibility. Those characteristics fit nicely with the modern business environment, which commands technical solutions just as adoptive and agile as the business itself.
A few short years ago, REST had a much lower profile than XML-RPC, which was much in fashion. Now XML-RPC seems to have less mindshare. People have made significant efforts to RESTize SOAP and WSDL. The question is no longer whether to REST, but instead it's become how to be the best REST?
The purpose of this article is to summarize some best practices and guidelines for implementing RESTful web services. I also propose a number of informal standards in the hope that REST implementations can become more consistent and interoperable.
The following notations are used in this article:
BP: best practice
G: general guideline
PS: proposed informal standard
TIP: implementation tip
AR: arguably RESTful -- may not be RESTful in the strict sense
Let's briefly reiterate the REST web services architecture. REST web services architecture conforms to the W3C's Web Architecture, and leverages the architectural principles of the Web, building its strength on the proven infrastructure of the Web. It utilizes the semantics of HTTP whenever possible and most of the principles, constraints, and best practices published by the TAG also apply.
The REST web services architecture is related to the Service Oriented Architecture. This limits the interface to HTTP with the four well-defined verbs: GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE. REST web services also tend to use XML as the main messaging format.
[G] Implementing REST correctly requires a resource-oriented view of the world instead of the object-oriented views many developers are familiar with.
One of the most important concepts of web architecture is a "resource." A resource is an abstract thing identified by a URI. A REST service is a resource. A service provider is an implementation of a service.
URI Opacity [BP]
The creator of a URI decides the encoding of the URI, and users should not derive metadata from the URI itself. URI opacity only applies to the path of a URI. The query string and fragment have special meaning that can be understood by users. There must be a shared vocabulary between a service and its consumers.
Query String Extensibility [BP, AR]
A service provider should ignore any query parameters it does not understand during processing. If it needs to consume other services, it should pass all ignored parameters along. This practice allows new functionality to be added without breaking existing services.
[TIP] XML Schema provides a good framework for defining simple types, which can be used for validating query parameters.
Deliver Correct Resource Representation [G]
A resource may have more than one representation. There are four frequently used ways of delivering the correct resource representation to consumers:
Server-driven negotiation. The service provider determines the right representation from prior knowledge of its clients or uses the information provided in HTTP headers like Accept, Accept-Charset, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, and User-Agent. The drawback of this approach is that the server may not have the best knowledge about what a client really wants.
Client-driven negotiation. A client initiates a request to a server. The server returns a list of available of representations. The client then selects the representation it wants and sends a second request to the server. The drawback is that a client needs to send two requests.
Proxy-driven negotiation. A client initiates a request to a server through a proxy. The proxy passes the request to the server and obtains a list of representations. The proxy selects one representation according to preferences set by the client and returns the representation back to the client.
URI-specified representation. A client specifies the representation it wants in the URI query string.
Server-Driven Negotiation [BP]
When delivering a representation to its client, a server MUST check the following HTTP headers: Accept, Accept-Charset, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, and User-Agent to ensure the representation it sends satisfies the user agent's capability.
When consuming a service, a client should set the value of the following HTTP headers: Accept, Accept-Charset, Accept-Encoding, Accept-Language, and User-Agent. It should be specific about the type of representation it wants and avoid "*/*", unless the intention is to retrieve a list of all possible representations.
A server may determine the type of representation to send from the profile information of the client.
URI-Specified Representation [PS, AR]
A client can specify the representation using the following query string:
A REST server should support this query.
Different Views of a Resource [PS, AR]
A resource may have different views, even if there is only one representation available. For example, a resource has an XML representation but different clients may only see different portion of the same XML. Another common example is that a client might want to obtain metadata of the current representation.
To obtain a different view, a client can set a "view" parameter in the URI query string. For example:
where the value of the "view" parameter determines the actual view. Although the value of "view" is application specific in most cases, this guideline reserves the following words:
"meta," for obtaining the metadata view of the resource or representation.
"status," for obtaining the status of a request/transaction resource.
A service represents a specialized business function. A service is safe if it does not incur any obligations from its invoking client, even if this service may cause a change of state on the server side. A service is obligated if the client is held responsible for the change of states on server side.
A safe service should be invoked by the GET method of HTTP. Parameters needed to invoke the service can be embedded in the query string of a URI. The main purpose of a safe service is to obtain a representation of a resource.
Service Provider Responsibility [BP]
If there is more than one representation available for a resource, the service should negotiate with the client as discussed above. When returning a representation, a service provider should set the HTTP headers that relate to caching policies for better performance.
A safe service is by its nature idempotent. A service provider should not break this constraint. Clients should expect to receive consistent representations.
Obligated Services [BP]
Obligated services should be implemented using POST. A request to an obligated service should be described by some kind of XML instance, which should be constrained by a schema. The schema should be written in W3C XML Schema or Relax NG. An obligated service should be made idempotent so that if a client is unsure about the state of its request, it can send it again. This allows low-cost error recovery. An obligated service usually has the simple semantic of "process this" and has two potential impacts: either the creation of new resources or the creation of a new representation of a resource.
One often hears the criticism that HTTP is synchronous, while many services need to be asynchronous. It is actually quite easy to implement an asynchronous REST service. An asynchronous service needs to perform the following:
Return a receipt immediately upon receiving a request.
Validate the request.
If the request if valid, the service must act on the request as soon as possible. It must report an error if the service cannot process the request after a period of time defined in the service contract.
An example receipt is shown below:
A receipt is a confirmation that the server has received a request from a client and promises to act on the request as soon as possible. The receipt element should include a received attribute, the value of which is the time the server received the request in WXS dateTime type format. The requestUri attribute is optional. A service may optionally create a request resource identified by the requestUri. The request resource has a representation, which is equivalent to the request content the server receives. A client may use this URI to inspect the actual request content as received by the server. Both client and server may use this URI for future reference.
However, this is application-specific. A request may initiate more than one transaction. Each transaction element must have a URI attribute which identifies this transaction. A server should also create a transaction resource identified by the URI value. The transaction element must have a status attribute whose value is a URI pointing to a status resource. The status resource must have an XML representation, which indicates the status of the transaction.
A transaction represents an atomic unit of work done by a server. The goal of a transaction is to complete the work successfully or return to the original state if an error occurs. For example, a transaction in a purchase order service should either place the order successfully or not place the order at all, in which case the client incurs no obligation.
Status URI [BP, AR]
The status resource can be seen as a different view of its associated transaction resource. The status URI should only differ in the query string with an additional status parameter. For example:
Transaction URI: http://www.example.com/xyz2343 Transaction Status URI: http://www.example.com/xyz2343?view=status
Transaction Lifecycle [G]
A transaction request submitted to a service will experience the following lifecycle as defined in Web Service Management: Service Life Cycle:
Start -- the transaction is created. This is triggered by the arrival of a request.
Received -- the transaction has been received. This status is reached when a request is persisted and the server is committed to fulfill the request.
Processing -- the transaction is being processed, that is, the server has committed resources to process the request.
Processed -- processing is successfully finished. This status is reached when all processing has completed without any errors.
Failed -- processing is terminated due to errors. The error is usually caused by invalid submission. A client may rectify its submission and resubmit. If the error is caused by system faults, logging messages should be included. An error can also be caused by internal server malfunction.
Final -- the request and its associated resources may be removed from the server. An implementation may choose not to remove those resources. This state is triggered when all results are persisted correctly.
Note that it is implementation-dependent as to what operations must be performed on the request itself in order to transition it from one status to another. The state diagram of a request (taken from Web Service Management: Service Life Cycle) is shown below:
As an example of the status XML, when a request is just received:
The XML contains a state attribute, which indicates the current state of the request. Other possible values of the state attribute are processing, processed, and failed.
When a request is processed, the status XML is (non-normative):
This time, a result element is included and it points to a URL where the client can GET request results.
In case a request fails, the status XML is (non-normative):
A bad request.
A client application can display the message enclosed within the message tag. It should ignore all other information. If a client believes that the error was not caused by its fault, this XML may serve as a proof. All other information is for internal debugging purposes.
Request Result [BP]
A request result view should be regarded as a special view of a transaction. One may create a request resource and transaction resources whenever a request is received. The result should use XML markup that is as closely related to the original request markup as possible.
Receiving and Sending XML [BP]
When receiving and sending XML, one should follow the principle of "strict out and loose in." When sending XML, one must ensure it is validated against the relevant schema. When receiving an XML document, one should only validate the XML against the smallest set of schema that is really needed. Any software agent must not change XML it does not understand.
An Implementation Architecture
The architecture represented above has a pipe-and-filter style, a classical and robust architectural style used as early as in 1944 by the famous physicist, Richard Feynman, to build the first atomic bomb in his computing team. A request is processed by a chain of filters and each filter is responsible for a well-defined unit of work. Those filters are further classified as two distinct groups: front-end and back-end. Front-end filters are responsible to handle common Web service tasks and they must be light weight. Before or at the end of front-end filters, a response is returned to the invoking client.
All front-end filters must be lightweight and must not cause serious resource drain on the host. A common filter is a bouncer filter, which checks the eligibility of the request using some simple techniques:
IP filtering. Only requests from eligible IPs are allowed.
URL mapping. Only certain URL patterns are allowed.
Time-based filtering. A client can only send a certain number of requests per second.
Cookie-based filtering. A client must have a cookie to be able to access this service.
Duplication-detection filter. This filter checks the content of a request and determines whether it has received it before. A simple technique is based on the hash value of the received message. However, a more sophisticated technique involves normalizing the contents using an application-specific algorithm.
A connector, whose purpose is to decouple the time dependency between front-end filters and back-end filters, connects front-end filters and back-end filters. If back-end processing is lightweight, the connector serves mainly as a delegator, which delegates requests to its corresponding back-end processors. If back-end processing is heavy, the connector is normally implemented as a queue.
Back-end filters are usually more application specific or heavy. They should not respond directly to requests but create or update resources.
This architecture is known to have many good properties, as observed by Feynman, whose team improved its productivity many times over. Most notably, the filters can be considered as a standard form of computing and new filters can be added or extended from existing ones easily. This architecture has good user-perceived performance because responses are returned as soon as possible once a request becomes fully processed by lightweight filters. This architecture also has good security and stability because security breakage and errors can only propagate a limited number of filters. However, it is important to note that one must not put a heavyweight filter in the front-end or the system may become vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks.
As usuall Jon Udell captures the moment with this detailed description of why he likes Bloglines | Jon Udell.
Since last fall, I've been recommending Bloglines to first-timers as the fastest and easiest introduction to the subscription side of the blogosphere. Remarkably, this same application also meets the needs of some of the most advanced users. I've now added myself to that list. Hats off to Mark Fletcher for putting all the pieces together in such a masterful way.
What goes around comes around. Five years ago, centralized feed aggregators -- my.netscape.com and my.userland.com -- were the only game in town. Fat-client feedreaders only arrived on the scene later. Because of the well-known rich-versus-reach tradeoffs, I never really settled in with one of those. Most of the time I've used the Radio UserLand reader. It is browser-based, and it normally points to localhost, but I've been parking Radio UserLand on a secure server so that I can read the feeds it aggregates for me from anywhere.
Bloglines takes that idea and runs with it. Like the Radio UserLand reader, it supports the all-important (to me) consolidated view of new items. But its two-pane interface also shows me the list of feeds, highlighting those with new entries, so you can switch between a linear of scan of all new items and random access to particular feeds. Once you've read an item it vanishes, but you can recall already-read items like so:
Display items within the last Session1 Hour6 Hours12 Hours24 Hours48 Hours72 HoursWeekMonthAll Items
If a month's worth of some blog's entries produces too much stuff to easily scan, you can switch that blog to a titles-only view. The titles expand to reveal all the content transmitted in the feed for that item.
I haven't gotten around to organizing my feeds into folders, the way other users of Bloglines do, but I've poked around enough to see that Bloglines, like Zope, handles foldering about as well as you can in a Web UI -- which is to say, well enough. With an intelligent local cache it could be really good; more on that later.
Bloglines does two kinds of data mining that are especially noteworthy. First, it counts and reports the number of Bloglines users subscribed to each blog. In the case of Jonathan Schwartz's weblog, for example, there are (as of this moment) 253 subscribers.
Second, Bloglines is currently managing references to items more effectively than the competition. I was curious, for example, to gauge the reaction to the latest salvo in Schwartz's ongoing campaign to turn up the heat on Red Hat. Bloglines reports 10 References. In this case, the comparable query on Feedster yields a comparable result, but on the whole I'm finding Bloglines' assembly of conversations to be more reliable than Feedster's (which, however, is still marked as 'beta'). Meanwhile Technorati, though it casts a much wider net than either, is currently struggling with conversation assembly.
I love how Bloglines weaves everything together to create a dense web of information. For example, the list of subscribers to the Schwartz blog includes: judell - subscribed since July 23, 2004. Click that link and you'll see my Bloglines subscriptions. Which you can export and then -- if you'd like to see the world through my filter -- turn around and import.
Moving my 265 subscriptions into Bloglines wasn't a complete no-brainer. I imported my Radio UserLand-generated OPML file without any trouble, but catching up on unread items -- that is, marking all of each feed's sometimes lengthy history of items as having been read -- was painful. In theory you can do that by clicking once on the top-level folder containing all the feeds, which generates the consolidated view of unread items. In practice, that kept timing out. I finally had to touch a number of the larger feeds, one after another, in order to get everything caught up. A Catch Up All Feeds feature would solve this problem.
[Update: The feature, of course, exists. Thanks to David Ron for pointing this out. The reason I didn't find it: the Mark All Read link is right-aligned at the top of the left pane, and not bound to the other controls found there. Since I have some feeds with very long titles, it's necessary to scroll rightward in the left pane to find the Mark All Read control. Operator error on my part, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.]
Another feature I'd love to see is Move To Next Unread Item -- wired to a link in the HTML UI, or to a keystroke, or ideally both.
Finally, I'd love it if Bloglines cached everything in a local database, not only for offline reading but also to make the UI more responsive and to accelerate queries that reach back into the archive.
Like Gmail, Bloglines is the kind of Web application that surprises you with what it can do, and makes you crave more. Some argue that to satisfy that craving, you'll need to abandon the browser and switch to RIA (rich Internet application) technology -- Flash, Java, Avalon (someday), whatever. Others are concluding that perhaps the 80/20 solution that the browser is today can become a 90/10 or 95/5 solution tomorrow with some incremental changes.
Dare Obasanjo wondered, over the weekend, "What is Google building?" He wrote:
In the past couple of months Google has hired four people who used to work on Internet Explorer in various capacities [especially its XML support] who then moved to BEA; David Bau, Rod Chavez, Gary Burd and most recently Adam Bosworth. A number of my coworkers used to work with these guys since our team, the Microsoft XML team, was once part of the Internet Explorer team. It's been interesting chatting in the hallways with folks contemplating what Google would want to build that requires folks with a background in building XML data access technologies both on the client side, Internet Explorer and on the server, BEA's WebLogic. [Dare Obasanjo]
It seems pretty clear to me. Web applications such as Gmail and Bloglines are already hard to beat. With a touch of alchemy they just might become unstoppable.
Yes, we all agree. I couldn't have put it better myself.
Standards Bodies to Give the Web Legs By Clint Boulton July 30, 2004
In a move to get more users to access the Web via mobile devices, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) have inked an agreement to collaborate on specifications.
The two standards bodies Thursday said they will share information to guard against creating dueling standards for making it easier for users to access the Internet via Web-enabled phones, cameras or personal digital assistants.
The W3C and OMA, which develops standards for mobile data services, will share technical information and specs to help provide solid, workable standards that benefit developers, product and service providers and users. The groups will hold meetings together to discuss each other's progress, but W3C officials said no timetable has been set for the meetings.
Max Froumentin, spokesman for the W3C's Multimodal and Voice Working Group, whose group writes specs to adapt Web content on mobile gadgets, said the move is an attempt to avoid doing the same work twice -- and differently.
"Now that we have devices that access the Web, there is a potential overlap between standards bodies," Froumentin told internetnews.com.
For example, Froumentin's group works on multimodal communications that allow speech recognition, keyboard, touch screen and a stylus to be used in the same session. This would alleviate the clumsiness of using a keyboard on a mobile smartphone. OMA could conceivably craft service standards that repeat the work of the multimodal group, causing redundancies.
The W3C/OMA pact comes at a time when the demand for mobile applications based on platforms such as Microsoft's .NET or Java is growing despite the relative immaturity of technologies and the lack of standards to facilitate them. W3C and OMA hope to change that by collaborating on common specs that may evolve into standards.
Philipp Hoschka, Interaction Domain Leader at the W3C, said another reason for the pact is a significant uptake in the interest of the W3C's mobile Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) and Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL).
"These are very much driven by the needs of the mobile community," Hoschka told internetnews.com, noting that SVG and SMIL are the basis for Multimedia Messaging Service, a descendant of Short Messaging Service, which the OMA is working on. Hoschka said MMS will allow users to send applications that support slide shows, audio and video from mobile devices.
In other standards news, the Securities and Exchange Commission said it is seeking public comment on alternative methods and the costs and benefits associated with data tagged by Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL), an open specificatio n for software that uses XML data tags to describe financial information for businesses.
The SEC said in a statement it will consider an SEC staff proposal to accept voluntary supplemental filings of financial data using XBRL, which would help the agency get a gauge on the types of data tagging currently available in the market.
The agency may propose a rule this fall that would establish the voluntary XBRL-tagged filing program beginning with the 2004 calendar year-end reporting season.
Industry experts love the possibilities of XBRL, which is heartily supported by software giant Microsoft, which produces its financial statements in XBRL.