Is using HTML5 Server-sent-events (SSE) ReSTful?

Question

I am not able to understand if HTML5s Server-sent-events really fit in a ReST architecture. I understand that NOT all aspects of HTML5/HTTP need to fit in a ReST architecture. But I would like to know from experts, which half of HTTP is SSE in (the ReSTful half or the other half !).

One view could be that it is ReSTful, because there is an 'initial' HTTP GET request from the client to the server and the remaining can just be seen as partial-content responses of just a different Content-type ("text/event-stream")

A request sent without any idea of how many responses are going to come as response(events) ? Is that ReSTful ?

Motivation for the question: We are developing the server-side of an app, and we want to support both ReST clients (in general) and Browsers (in particular). While SSEs will work for most of the HTML5 browser clients, we are not sure if SSEs are suitable for support by a pure ReST client. Hence the question.

Edit1: Was reading Roy Fielding's old article, where he says : "In other words, a single user request results in a potentially large number of server obligations. As such, a benevolent user can produce a disproportionate load on the publisher or broker that is distributing notifications. On the Internet, we don’t have the luxury of designing just for benevolent users, and thus in HTTP systems we call such requests a denial-of-service exploit.... That is exactly why there is no standard mechanism for notifications in HTTP"

Does that imply SSE is not ReSTful ?

Edit2: Was going through Twitter's REST API. While REST puritans might debate if their REST API is really/fully REST, just the title of the section Differences between Streaming and REST seems to suggest that Streaming (and even SSE) cannot be considered ReSTful !? Anyone contends that ?

Answer 1

I think it depends:

Do your server-side events use hypermedia and hyperlinks to describe possible state changes?

The answer to that question is the answer to whether or not they satisfy REST within your application architecture.

Now, the manner in which those events are sent/received may or may not adhere to REST - everything I have read about SSE suggests that they do not. I suspect it will impact several principles, especially layering - though if intermediaries were aware of the semantics of SSE you could probably negate this.

I think this is orthogonal as it's just part of the processing directive for HTML and JavaScript that the browser (via the JavaScript it is running) understands. You should still be able to have client-side application state decoupled from server-side resource state.

Some of the advice I've seen on how to deal with scaling using SSE don't fit REST - i.e. introducing custom headers (modifying the protocol).

How do you respect REST while using SSE?

I'd like to see some kind of

<link rel="event" href="http://example.com/user/1" />

Then the processing directives (including code-on-demand such as JavaScript) of whatever content-type/resource you are working with tell the client how to subscribe and utilize the events made available from such a hyperlink. Obviously, the data of those events should itself be hypermedia containing more hyperlinks that control program flow. (This is where I believe you make the distinction between REST and not-REST).

At some point the browser could become aware of that link relationship - just like a stylesheet and do some of that fancy wire-up for you, so all you do is just listen for events in JavaScript.

While I do think that your application can still fit a REST style around SSE, they are not REST themselves (Since your question was specifically about their use, not their implementation I am trying to be clear about what I am speaking to).

I dislike that the specification uses HTTP because it does away with a lot of the semantics and effectively tunnels an anemic protocol through an otherwise relatively rich one. This is supposedly a benefit but strikes me as selling dinner to pay for lunch.

ReST clients (in general) and Browsers (in particular).

How is your browser not a REST client? Browser are arguably the most REST client of all. It's all the crap we stick in to them via JavaScript that makes then stop adhering to REST. I suspect/fear that as long as we continue to think about our REST-API 'clients' and our browser clients as fundamentally different we will still be stuck in this current state - presumably because all the REST people are looking for a hyperlink that the RPC people have no idea needs to exist ;)