This document is the result an e-mail conversation between Marco Baringer and Dave Roberts. The conversation started with Dave Roberts' blog posting talking about REST in the context of web applications.
Marco Baringer's writing is enclosed in boxes like this one, while Dave Roberts' writing is enclosed in .
In short: The REST camp is right, but our definition of "web application" is too wide. The term "web application," in its common use, appiles to two radically different things whcih both travel over HTTP:
I'd argue that REST is the perfect (and only) tool for the first category, while continuations work great for the second. I'd also argue that most "web sites" are a mix of both. Take amazon for example, when I use amazon there are two independant things i want to do 1) browse for books and 2) buy books. the browsing part should follow the REST principles, however the buying part should not, purchasing a book is an inherently statefull operation which requires the server to maintain some of the client's state. The order of operations in purchasing a book is complex and, imnsho, much easier to express using continutations. At the same time writing the code to show book details is much easier when you just transalte a url into an sql query and show the resulting rows.
I'm not totally convinced that the checkout portion can't be made REST as well. The REST crowd actually thinks so. Clearly, there is state, but they would say that the state should either return with the next request or should be stored on the server side in the database, not carried in the web server. That may be bending the rules on REST, though.
i'm not going to argue that i can't, only that it shouldn't.
The application, and its underlying database, have a certain state which is global and shared by everyone. Then there is the state of GUI, this information (what page we're looking at, what the navigation history is, etc.) may be implemented in the DB but it's not application state, its GUI state.
When the REST guys start sending this GUI state in the response objects they run into a number of obstacles (since they need to send all of the GUI state for every response): 1) object marshalling, 2) malicious clients 3) request/response size limits. Continuation based apps need only send: 1) a key (generally a random string a few tens of characters long) specifying the session and the point in the sesion history, 2) what's changed in the user interface.
Right. I would agree that it's much easier to just use standard session data like most web servers provide today. The REST guys would just argue that it's less scalable. And they're right, too. The big question is, does it only matter for sites like Amazon or EBay which are massive, or does it come into play at lower levels of scalability, too.
The REST guys are against sessions? I don't think that's what they meant; how else would you ever implement anything personalized?
Yep, they're against sessions and consequently generally down on personalization. Their answer is that this isn't REST.
I should probably qualify it, though. *In the context of REST*, they are down on those concepts. I think you'd find many people that would say, "Sure, the only way to implement personalization is with sessions, and that's fine when you want to go that way, but realize that you are now stepping out of a REST architecture style and you're going to pay that penalty" This is one reason why I think REST is most applicable to web applications that would otherwise use SOAP (i.e. "web services," not something interactive).
Maybe this is just another case of distinguishing between web apps as "collections of resources named by urls" and web apps as "applications which happen to use the browser for a GUI"
This doesn't mean that you can't shoe-horn the statefull part of the application into REST but it does mean that REST is not the best option for this (and vice versa).
Right. The question really is, what penalty are you paying when you move outside the REST style, and can you afford that. In some cases, you probably can. My big question is, how much is the penalty for continuations? If it's small, then no biggie. If large, then you really have to think about it. I could see continuations being very large, depending on how they were implemented, and that would definitely push you to larger and larger server front-ends with all the consequent headache.
when you talk about continuations and web apps (interactive applications with a web GUI) there are (mainly) two places where the continutaions come into play:
writing the code - we (some of us at least) would like to write our code sequentially, even though it will be executed asynchronously and certain parts of it may be executed multiple times (think back button and window cloning). there is no penalty here if the contiuations are implemented by a compile time code transformation (as ucw does). [well, there is a slight penalty since we introduce an oscene number of lambda calls, but its basically 0 compared to reading/writing the requests/response (trust me on this)]. Even when you use "full" built in continuations (as SeaSide and PLT scheme do) the overhead is still little more than a couple function calls and some memory (stact) manipulation.
The only thing I was worried about was the memory allocation, not the time to render the page. As you say, either style's speed difference is swamped by the cost of the I/O. Again, my main issue is how much memory I'm sucking up with all those various continuations hanging around. And remember that I have multiple continuations per page (every link, right?). That could easily be many KB per continuation. Depending on how much back-button saving state I want to hang around, I could literally have MBs per user. If my policy is to let that stuff hang around until a timeout of some sort or an explicit logout/finish purchase point, I have to worry about how many people abandon their session, etc. You get the idea.
a ucw session object consists of:
each session frame object consits of:
what you (and i) should be worried about are all those closure objects. a closure consists of two things: 1) a code vector and 2) an environment. the code vector is shared across all closures in all sessions, so all we're really worried about is the environment. the environment is bascially a (constant size) vector of objects, assuming has a page has ten links each with an action (in ucw the actions are generally simple forms which call some function on the srever) we'll have a couple objets in the environment. each of these objects is however shared across all the closure in the page. in all honesty i don't think the cost of memory is such an issue , i did some quick math and came up with about 400 bytes per session + 700 bytes per request/response iteration (assuming you backtrack about 10 objects per request/response and assuming each "slot" is 4 byte wide (immediate objects are saved in the slot, non immediates require some memory for the data as well). would this be a big issue for sites like amazon and ebay? yes. is this an issue for 99% of the web apps out there? considering how the cost of 1GB of RAM, no.
what is a much bigger issue is farming out sessions. if you don't want to get swamped in serializeng/deserializng objects and sending them over the network you really need to leave a session on the same machine for its entire life, while dobale (i should have a client who will fund this work in a few months) it's not immediate and you still run the risk of having one machine at 100% CPU and another idle.
This is pretty easy and done all the time. That's why load balancers implement a sticky policy to keep a given client bound to the same front-end web server. The issue then becomes how critical that data is in the event of a server failure, but the scalability model has been conquered.
saving the state - when the user clicks on a link we want to make sure that the state of the app as the _user_ saw it on the page corresponds to the state on the server, even when the user has used the back button. in this case you, developer, have to tell the framework what state shoud be saved and restored based on the user's request and what state is global and doesn't change even though the user has "undone" some pages.
generally we save the state regarding the GUI (values of forms, what the "current" page is, state of the navigation menu) and don't save the general application state (user data, db manipulations, etc.) how much you save is up to the developer. i'd like to point out that this penalty (saving and restoring GUI state) is taken even by REST apps (if they want to do things right), it's just that's its done by hand.
Yes, agreed. State is state. You have to store it somewhere and then restore it when you get another request.
the difference is who has to deal with that job. in a continuation based system you usally end up with a framework where the saving and restoring is done by the framework itself, all you (developer) have to do is use tha data. in the rest frameworks i've seen you have to do this work yourself.
Right, agreed. The explicit model forces you to do more work. The continuation model makes this seamless, but could hand you a huge scalability problem if you aren't conscious about what's happening behind the scenes. Like any high-level paradigm (language, for instance), they can make some things seem really easy, but that can mask performance problems if you aren't careful.
The problem most people face is that you never hear about applications-which-use-browser-for-a-GUI, what you see 99% of the time are regular old web applications whose underyling paradigm hasn't changed since 1992. Those real world applications (#2 above) are usually deployed on an intranet and neither look nor feel (nor are considered) different from a regular desktop application.
How do you mean that you never hear about those? Can you give me an example of an application that you know about that works that way?
i've developed a document management systems for a law office and various patient management systems for hospitals, i've worked on buisness intelligence and e-learning tools. None of these apps were ever accessable to the public nor did they ever have to deal with more than 50 simultaneous users, though they did have extremly complex user interactions.
Ah, got it. I guess that's the sort of app that I think that continuation-based methods would work well on. If the user count is low and the scalability doesn't have to go higher than those sorts of numbers, I see no reason not to use almost whatever technique is most expedient (continuation, REST, or something else).
I don't think it's ever been proven, but i've a strong feeling that state machines are another way of writing cps code (and vice versa). if we have some code like this:
Actually, I think it has been proven, but perhaps in another context. Really, this is just the same old tension between old linear, sequential programming and event-driven programming, ala the original Mac GUI in 1984. The only difference between the two is where you store the state of the state machine. In the sequential code/continuation case, it's in the activation records sitting on the stack. In the state machine case, it's more explicit. Neither is ultimately more expressive, just different.
right. however i still think that while the underlying machinery is more explicit in the state machine the high level goals are more explict in the continuation case.
I suppose it depends on what you're comfortable with. Again, I often think in terms of state machines anyway. Either way, we're mapping a series of HTTP requests onto some sort of model and using that to simplify our thinking. You think sequentially; I often think in terms of state machines.
(do-one-thing) (show-a-page) (do-another-thing) (show-another-page) (done)
that's basically the same as writing:
(loop with state = 'initial do (case state (initial (do-one-thing) (print 'a-page) (setf state 'post-one-thing)) (post-one-thing (do-another-thing) (print 'another-page) (setf state 'post-another-thing)) (post-another-thing (done) (setf state 'done))))
it's just a lot harder to read.
Yup. I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to develop a small interpreted Lisp language (in Lisp, of course) that would drive the high-level page flow and allow you to save off continuations appropriately. Either that or some radical macros that would allow you to write in a very linear style but would explode to a full state machine with very optimized state storage. That's the fun thing about Lisp, I suppose--everything is possible and relatively easy to implement.
i had guessed you knew about UnCommom Web. UCW contains a cps transformer and the machinery for saving the lexical and GUI state, developers don't even need to know what a continuation is to use it, they just write:
(defaction do-something ((c my-task-component)) (do-one-thing) ;; pass do-another-thing the informaiot collected in a-page (do-another-thing (call 'a-page)) ;; pass done the information collected in another-page (done (call 'another-page)))
except for the html generation that's all there is to it. the code will "block" when the forms (call 'a-page) and (call 'another-page) are executed and will only continue when those pages "return".
Got it. Very interesting. Yes, that's basically what I had in mind. Given that you're doing this in CL, you have to fake the continuations with a macro transformation into CPS style. That's cool though. Any idea how much state you're saving per continuation?
the components a-page and another-page will need to "answer" at some point so that the forms (call 'a-page) and (call 'another-page) return. let's assume those component are immediate (don't ever call other components) and present two links, one which returns t and one which returns nil. let us also assume the components backtrack two places each (useing the shallow copyer). in order to complete the action do-something there will be, with these assumpitons, two pages seen by the user. so:
that's basically it. should the user use the back button certain functions will be called again but the amout of memory used won't increase.
note the each link in the page does not create a continuation. each link simply calls a function, the "continuations" only come into play when a component answers. each component object has its continuation and these continuations are nothing more than closures (so the code vector itself is compiled and shared across all instances while only the envornment changes from component to component).
My head is spinning at this point. I need to dig into the code and see what's really doing on. I can't follow the thread of control at the time of rendering and overall through the application from that description above (not your fault; I just don't understand enough UCW terminology yet).
you can't understand because te only place its described is the code. here's a high level description of the standard rerl implementation, tell me if its clear enough:
every time a user "uses" a ucw app they have one session object, every request/response cycle gets one session frame. every time a ucw recieves an http request it basically does this:
uncommon web has a main loop which looks more or less like this:
(loop for request = (read-request) for state = (fetch-state request) for new-state = (handle-action state request) do (setf (fetch-state request) new-state))
a while ago i wrote the control loop for a dynamic (states and state transfer functions were put into hash tables and changed at run time) state machine and it's main loop looked very similar to that.
Right. I'm not sure that's actually much easier to read/write at the end of the day. You're just making a state machine with a hashtable doing the state lookup and dispatch rather than a case.
depends on who writes it. in ucw it's written by the framework so i don't really care (or know :)) how hard/easy it is to write.
Personally, I find state machines very natural to write in. Perhaps that's my hardware background coming through. Rather that avoid the abstraction, I'm more willing to just embrace it. Its sort of like Linus writing Linux in C and disallowing all sorts of typedefs because he wants everybody to know when they're manipulating a structure and when they aren't. Part of me prefers to map my brain onto the underlying problem such that it's more well understood.
I'd assume that that part of your brain knows when the mapping is helpfull and when it's not (your brain doesn't map LOOP constructs into the underlying assembler).
Right, agreed. My motto is just to pick an abstraction that works. I'm not in the camp that all you have is a hammer and therefore everything should be viewed as a nail. ;-)
the reason ucw exists is that, in web applications, the underlying techincal details are so diametrically opposed to the high level problem. attempting to map "do this, then if A do that else loop over page B" to the http request/response paradigm is such a pain that you just give up on complex interactions.
[This is provacative but not complety untrue:
The REST camp is trying to simplify the world so that the problem ceases to exist. The continuation camp is solving the problem.]
You're right. That's provocative. ;-) I don't see that the REST camp is avoiding the problem so much as they are trying to make sure that people understand the tradeoffs. Even the REST people will say that sometimes you should just whack out something quickly with SOAP if you know that scalability is never going to be an issue. I think for interactive apps, they would just make sure that everybody is aware of the tradeoffs and then say, "Hey, if you can live with the scalability limits imposed by your particular architectural style, then fine. Get on with it."
you're trying to introduce the vaice of reason into this conversation. STOP IT! :)
Anyway, my point(s):
Yup, fully agree. In fact, that was exactly my motivation for asking the question. Continuations are clearly nice. But how far can they take you and where do they break down. Clearly REST is more scalable, blah, blah, but it's also a bit more complex because you may have to fit your application into a style that is less natural. Therefore, when should somebody go through the pain of choosing a REST style when it isn't natural?
Continuations in web apps do not allow you to do anything which can't be done without them, though i'd argue that there are certain user interactions which are too complex to manage (for a developer's point of view) without them.
I'd probably agree with that, but again, the threshold for "too complex" is probably higher than yours is, just because I seem to be more comfortable with a state machine architectural style. But yes, I agree.
Continuations have a non zero cost. However much of that cost already exists in REST apps when they attempt to offer the same functionality as continuation based apps.
It would be interesting to turn this into hard numbers. For instance, exactly how much state is being saved with every continuation?