Category Archives: API Platform CS

UKOUG Conference 2018

04 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, APIs & microservices, General, ICS, Oracle, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

With the start of December comes the UK Oracle User Group conference, or to be more precise the Independent UKOUG.  This year the conference is back in Blackpool, a slightly smaller venue than the ICC in Birmingham, but in many respects that made the event feel more vibrant and busy.

The user group also announced some of the changes it is making going forwards reflecting the changing needs of its members – SIGs being largely superseded by multi-stream single day events (Summits) with the Call for Papers for the first of these here.  A wider list of Oracle related Calls for Papers is available here.

Of course being a UKOUG Volunteer, I have been presenting and co-presenting.  The slides from my presentation sessions can be found at:

This was an abridged version of the an update on my presentation here 

My second presentation was a review of Oracle Integration Cloud, in which I presented some customer use cases of OCI  as part of a wider presentation on OIC by Sid Joshi. 

This was followed on the second day with two API based sessions, the first being a deep dive into custom API Policies on the Oracle API Platform.

The final session, was another short one looking at Apiary which was primarily a demo of what the solution can do.

On top of trying to keep up with my usual workload – a very hectic couple of days.

Defining Boundaries for Logical Gateways on the API Platform a multi cloud / multi region context

31 Wednesday Oct 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, General, Oracle, Technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

The Oracle API Platform takes a different licensing model to many platforms, rather than on CPU it works by the use of Logical Gateways and blocks of 25 million successful API calls per month. This means you can have as many actual gateway nodes as you like within a logical group to ensure resilience as you like, essentially how widely you deploy the gateways is more of a maintenance consideration (i.e. more nodes means more gateways to take through a maintenance process from the OS through to the gateway itself).

In our book (here) we described the use of logical gateways (groups of gateway nodes operating together) based on the classic development model, which provides a solid foundation and can leverage the gateway based routing policy very effectively.

logical partitions

But, things get a little trickier if you move into the cloud and elect to distribute the back end services geographically rather than perhaps have a single global instance for the back-end implementation and leverage technologies such as Content Delivery Networks to cache data at the cloud edge and their rapid routing capabilities to offset performance factors.

map1

Classic Global split of geographies

Some of the typical reasons for geographically distributing solutions are …

  • Low hit rate on data meaning caching solutions like CDNs are unlikely to yield performance benefits wanted and considerable additional work is needed to ‘warm’ the cache,
  • Different regions require different back end implementations ordering of products in one part of the world maybe fulfilled using a partner, but in another it is directly satisfied,
  • Data is subject to residency/sovereignty rules – consider China for example. But Germany and India also have special considerations as well.

So our Global splits start to look like:

map2

Global Split now adding extra divisions for India, China, Russia etc

The challenge that comes, is that the regional routing which maybe resolved on the Internet side of things through Geo Routing such as the facilities provided by AWS Route53 and Oracle’s Dyn DNS as a result finding nearest local gateway. However Geo DNS may not be achievable internally (certainly not for AWS), as a result routing to the nearest local back-end needs to be handled by the gateway. Gateway based routing can solve the problem based on logical gateways – so if we logically group gateways regionally then that works. But, this then conflicts with the use of gateway based routing for separation of Development, Test etc.

Routing Options

So, what are the options? Here are a few …

  • Make you Logical divisions both by environment and by region – this is fine if you’re processing very high volumes i.e. hundreds of millions or more so the cost of additional Logical gateways is relatively small it the total budget.

map3

Taking the geo split and applying the traditional layers as well has increased the number of Logical gateways

This problem can be further exacerbated, if you consider many larger organisations are likely to end up with different cloud vendors in the same part of the world for example AWS and Azure, or Oracle and Google. So continuing the segmentation can become an expensive challenge as the following view helps show:

map4

It is possible contract things slightly by only have development and test cloud services where ever your core development center is based. Note that in the previous and next diagrams we’ve removed the region/country specific gateway drivers.

map5

  • Don’t segment based on environment, but only on region – but then how do you control changes in the API configuration so they don’t propagate immediately into production?
  • Keep the existing model but clone APIs for each region – certainly the tooling we’ve shared (Managing API Policy Versioning in Oracle API Platform) makes this possible, but it’s pretty inelegant and error prone as it be easy to forget to clone a change, and the cloning logic needs to be extended to take into account the bits that must be region specific.
  • Assuming you have a DNS address for the target, you could effectively rewrite the resolution of the address by changing its meaning in each gateway node’s host file. Inelegant, but effective if you have automated deployment and configuration of your gateway servers.
  • Header based routing with the region and environment as header attributes. This does require either the client to set the values (not good as you’re revealing to your API consumer traits of the implementation), or you apply custom policies before the header based routing that insert those attributes based on the gateway’s location etc.
  • Build a new type of gateway based routing which allows both the environment (dev, test etc) and location (region) to inform the routing,

Or, and the point of this blog, use gateway based routing and leverage some intelligent DNS naming and how the API Platform works with a little bit of Groovy or a custom Java policy.

Continue reading →

Analytics and Stats for APIs

05 Friday Oct 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, General, Oracle, Technology

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

The Oracle API Platform provides the means to examine statistics and slice and dice the numbers by application, gateway, duration and so on resulting in visually appealing graphical representations.  The way the analytics works means you can book mark specific views, so you can return the same report view with the relevant features as often as you like.  However, presently there is no data export option.

The question why would I want to export the information comes down to several possible use cases, all of which relate to cost management.  The API Platform will eventually have all the desired data views, but now something to help address the following:

  • money-tization, we can see which consumer has been using the services by how much and then send the data to a companies accounting systems to invoice the users
  • Ability to examine demand and workload over time to create a projection of the likely infrastructure – to achieve this the API statistics need to be overlaid with infrastructure and performance details so we can extrapolate API growth against server workload.

To address these kinds of requirements, we have taken advantage of the fact the API Platform has drunk its own Champagne as they say and made many of the analytics querying APIs publicly available.  As with the other API Platform tools, the logic has been written in Groovy, and freely available for use – we’ve covered the code through a Create Common license.

Tool includes a range of parameters to allow the data retrieved into a CSV file having filtered in a number of different ways – which logical gateways to examine, which API or Application(s) to report on.  Finally, just to help some basic stats are produced with a count of logical gateways, API calls, APIs defined and Application definitions. The first three factors inform your cloud costs. Together the stats can help Oracle understand your use case. Note that the parameters which impact the CSV generation can also materially impact the reporting numbers.

Parameters:

The 1st three values must always be provided and in the order shown here

  1. user name to access the source management cloud
  2. password for the source management cloud
  3. The server address without any attributes e.g. https://1.2.3.4

All the following values are optional

  • -h or -help – provides this information
  • -g – Logical gateway to retrieve numbers from e.g. production or development. using ALL with this parameter will result in ALL gateways being examined
  • -f – the file to target the CSV data should be written to. If not set then the default of
  • -t – indicates whether the data provided should be taken from an APPS perspective or from an API view by passing either APPS | API
  • -d – will get script to report more information about what is happening
  • -p – reporting period which is defined by a number as follows:
    • 0 – Last 365 days – data is given as per month
    • 1 – Last 30 days – this is the default if no information is provided – data is given as per day
    • 2 – Last 7 days – data is given as per day
    • 3 – Last day – data is given as per hour

NB – still testing the utility at this moment – will remove this comment once happy

Documenting APIs on the Oracle API Platform

21 Monday May 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, General, Oracle, Technology

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The last week or two I have been working on a new API Platform utility to add to my existing tools (see here). This tool addresses the question of generating documentation.  Much as been said about API documentation and the quality of it, check out these articles :

If you look at these articles and others, there are some common themes, which are:

  • Document the URI / payload
  • Describe error handling
  • Describe contracts such as how many API calls
  • How the API is authenticated

Apiary covers the first theme to a first class standard,  and you will see Apiary called out for its ability to document APIs in a lot of articles. Well written API Blueprints will cover the bulk of the second bullet. But the other points tend to fall outside of a Blueprint and fit more the API Policies and their use.

Not everyone is so commited or enjoys writing documentation. The other driver for going beyond the use of Apiary is that some organizations feel the need to have a traditional word style document to capture/define an API’s contract in detail. With the API Platform the management portal enables an API to be published into the developer portal with the Apiary definition and a markdown file for further documentation.

Continue reading →

Managing API Policy Versioning in Oracle API Platform

27 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, APIs & microservices, Books, General, Oracle, Technology

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Oracle’s API Platform (API-P) product avoids the use of external configuration management. If you want to better understand why, then checkout our forthcoming book as it goes into detail about why this is the case (it can be pre-release version of the book can be obtained here). In a previous blog I wrote about and illustrated the use of the API-P’s own APIs so that it was possible to see what API iterations had been deployed to API Gateways.

In this blog I want to explore the issues of version management a bit further. API-P provides internal version management through the idea of iterations as previously explored (Understanding API Deployment State on API Platform). In addition to this there are API policy attributes called version, status etc. This information whilst having some impact on behavior reflects the version of the ‘contract’ that the API represents between the consumer and provider, and requires a manual change.

The API policies themselves are version tracked through the iteration identifiers. Each time a policy is saved the iteration is is incremented. What the API-P doesn’t support is the concept of branching. In relatively simple API Policy branching is unlikely to ever be an issue.

Why is a reversion capability needed?

Let’s take a more complex scenario.  In our book API Platform we introduced the some APIs that would allow the retrieval of meta data about artists in the record companies’ catalog. It has however come to light that the API has been targeted with malicious calls, firstly through trying to attack using injection attacks and secondly trying to overload the back end by creating data requests that make the back-end work hard in retrieving data.

To defend against this, the API Policy has been enhanced to include some custom groovy policies to inspect the values provided. Strictly speaking following the principles of Semantic Versioning the API version should go from 1.0.0 to 1.0.1. However seeing that the ‘contract’ as presented to the consumer hasn’t really changed – the data models are the same, the URI goes unaltered resulting in the implementation team not changing the version.

During development processes, it is not unusual to be developing existing logic, and decide that approach being used isn’t right or not going to perform as well. So you abandon your changes and revert back to the last approved version. However, this isn’t possible as any save will result in a new iteration. The API-P will be getting some enhanced version management features. But today to be able to undo the changes we need a means to ‘revert forward‘ (hence the tool name) that is to take an older iteration and make it the latest, as illustrated in the next diagram.

Today the API-P doesn’t provide a means to perform this process within the User interface. However when looking at a gateway you can review the API policy deployed. As we established previously that you may have different gateways deployed with different iterations. Given this, as API-P has been built true to the principles of separating the UI from the backend through the use of APIs we can deduce there should be a means to get the details of an API with a specific iteration.

To this end we have built on the pattern previously illustrated to provide the means to ‘Revert Forward’ by creating a Groovy script that will use the APIs provided by API-P to retreive an iteration and push it back at the latest version. When the policy is pushed back it also modifies the description to show which iteration has been pushed.

You may ask, why not use the conventional developer approach of branching as suggested in the following diagram. However API-P’s iteration framework doesn’t extend to support this.

The next with this is pretty predictable – how do I know which iteration to revert to. You have two options here, firstly either revert in order so you can see the prior version in turn – which whilst visually good, is not necessarily the most practical option. So in the tool we have a parameter that will allow you to display on the console the configuration of each iteration. This does mean you are going to see the policies in a JSON presentation. To make life easier we would recommend good practise and recording in the policy description information that helps determine the policy’s characteristics – and this can be used to better determine iteration behaviour.

If we are able to take an earlier iteration and make it the latest one by pushing it back then it is a short step to actually target a different management cloud in effect migrating the policies. Whilst possible it comes with some serious cautions …

  • You risk undermining your version management, which management cloud has the master, and the iteration numbers will NOT migrate so it’s not like this info can be used to distinguish the laster version
  • The logic included doesn’t accommodate handling differences in policy versions – so if trying move between instances of the API Platform they need to be the same version otherwise your configuration could make a mess of thing
  • This issue is further compounded if you are deploying custom Java policies.
  • Environment specific policies simply won’t work for example gateway based routing.

Oracle does not recommend that the policies be stored anywhere outside of the platform, whilst it this utility makes that a possibility, it deliberately avoids writing any of the information to the file, the policies only reside outside of the platform for the duration of the process execution.

The Tools Commands

All the parameters assume the values will not contain any space characters. Each command is preceded by a dash eg. revertForward.groovy -inpassword mypass -inSvr https://a.b.com

  • -h or -help – provides this information
  • -inName – user name to access the source management cloud
  • -inPass – password for the source management cloud
  • -inSvr – The server address without any attributes e.g. https://1.2.3.4
  • -policy – numeric identifier for the policy of interest
  • -iter – iteration number of interest for the policy – optional
  • -outName – optional, the target management cloud username, only needed for migrations
  • -outPass – optional, the target management cloud password, only needed for migrations
  • -outSvr – optional, the target management cloud server address – same formatting as inSvr, only needed for migrations
  • -override – optional, if migrating to another management, tells the script to replace the existing policy of the same name if found
  • -view – optional, separate command to allow viewing of the policy – requires one of the following values:
    • display – displays all the details of the policy, if no iteration is provided this will be the latest iteration
    • summary – provides the headline information of the policy including name, change date etc
    • summary-all – summarizes all the iterations from the current one back to the 1st
  • -debug – optional, will get script to report more information about what is happening

The code can be obtained from my GitHub repository here.

Tracing Executions in an API Environment

07 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, APIs & microservices, General, Technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

As APIs become more pervasive within our solutions we see the arrival of not just design and cataloging tools such as Apiary, Apigee and others but also the arrival of gateways. The gateways provide execution of operations including validation, accounting (moneytization), routing, and other controls such as throttled checks that would often not occur until the first contact with a service bus. For example initial routing based on the API call, fine grained authentication and authorisation (differing from your firewalls who will just perhaps authorise).

In the more traditional integration middleware of Oracle Service Bus and SOA (regardless of cloud, on-premises) you can trace the execution through the middleware end to end. This tracing can be achieved because the platform creates and assigns the a UUID (aka eCID) and ensures that it is carried through the middleware. It is this very behaviour that allows Oracle to provide Business Activity Monitoring without any need to be invasive. Burt not only that in a highly distyributed environment you can track the processing of a transaction from end to end.

The challenge now is that the first point of middleware style behaviour can be at the gateway. So we actually need to move forward the UUID or equivalent forward the the first point of contact. Not only that we need to think about the fact we will see non Oracle integration middleware involved.  Within Spring, Kabana and other established frameworks and tools which are getting signficiant traction with the rise of Microservices, the Ids being used are not the same as the UUIDs used by Oracle. For example Spring Cloud Slueth uses the same HTTP header Ids that Zipkin and Kabana support:

  • X-B3-TraceId
  • X-B3-SpanId
  • X-B3-ParentSpanId

More information can be found here and here.

For the new Oracle API Platform Cloud Service we can check for the existance of the header attributes as a policy and apply actions such as:

  • Apply a header with a TraceId or spanId,
  • If a SpanId exists then we may wish to nest our call as a child span by moving the SpandId to the ParentSpanId and creating a new SpanId.

Ultimately it would be more attractive to apply the logic using the API Platform’s SDK but to get things rolling applying the IDs with the API Groovy policy is sufficient (more here).

Next question that begs, is where to put the ID and want to call it? Put the value in the body, and you’re invading the business aspect of an API with execution specific details, not to mention potentially  changing the API definition. Whilst stuffing HTTP(s) headers with custom attributes is often discouraged as the values aren’t to immediately visible. In my opinion at least the answer largely has been set by president for us. If you weren’t using HTTPS but JMS then you would use the header, but also a number of frameworks already exist that do make use of this strategy such as those mentioned above.

Using the header defined by Kabana etc means that the very process will mean that a number of Support tools out of the box will understand and be able to help visualise your logs with no additional effort.

The following is a Groovy script that could ber used for the purposes of applying an Id appropriately into the HTTP header in the API Platform:

if (!context.getApiRequest().getHeaders().containsKey ("baggage-UUID "))
{
  // use current time to seed random generator
  def now = java.time.Instant.now()
  def random = new java.util.Random(now.getEpochSecond())

  // create an array of 16 bytes to hold the random value
  byte[] uid = new byte[16]
  random.nextBytes(uid)

  // convert the random string from Hex to an ASCII string
  Writable uidInHex= uid.encodeHex()
  String uidStr= uidInHex.toString() 

  // set the outbound header
  context.getServiceRequest().setHeader("baggage-UUID", uidStr)
}

API Design

05 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, APIs & microservices, Books, General, mindmap

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

When it comes to ensuring I keep up good practises, I try to look at books  in areas I think I have a good handle on such as APIs.  Why?  well it confirms and validates I’m upto date; sometimes another view point can spark ideas on how to make something better, improve an approach or simply understand another way of explaining an idea.  The later is important as the key benefit of knowing something is the opportunity to help someone else. Not everyone communicates or understands ideas in the same so this is always helpful.

Designing Great Web APIsSo recently I ran through James Higginbotham’s Designing Great Web API’s book(let).  Often when goping through a book I mindmap it so that I can share it, and refer to it as a lit of prompts reminders if necessary.  Whilst’s James’ book doesnt  reveal anything new or relevatory for anyone working with APIs it does provide a good succinct explination to  basic practises. So here is the mindmap:

great APIs

You can also access my MapWise view here. James’ book can be obtained freely from O’Reilly here.

The book doesn’t go into the depth of details for practises that Apiary (Pro Edition) offers with style guidelines which will describe morec detailed recommended practises (more here).

Validating API Platform Policies & Gateway Deployments

01 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by in API Platform CS, APIs & microservices, General, Oracle, Technology

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

When configuring API Policies in the the Oracle API Platform it helps if there is a simple back end that can take the received payload and record the sent values (header & body) as well as reflect the call details back as the response, or possibly respond with a test payload (so that response policies, particularly policies that require payload navigation  can be exercised correctly).  By having this facility it becomes a lot easier to determine whether the policies are executing correctly in terms of routing, transforming, filtering etc. without needing to worry about whether the API implementation is correct. You could say that this is a kind of mock for testing the API Platform.

The added benefit of having a mock back end is that it is easy to ‘smoke test’ a gateway deployment very easily.  Particularly if the mock is happy to receive any form of call.

Whilst implementing such a capability can be done in pretty much any language and platform you like.  We have in the past for example built a Springboot Java application that can have the dependencies configured to then deploy into WebLogic for example.  We have come to refer these test apps/mocks as PlatformTests as that’s exactly what they help do. A Node.js implementation of a PlatformTest such as as the following implementation is particularly appealing as the Node.js footprint is small and simple to deploy and undeploy. A basic Node.js implementation can also consume any URL and operation you choose to use. The nature of JavaScript makes it very quick to adapt the mock if need be. Although in the ideal world, we write the solution once and then use simple configuration to tune behavior.

The following code looks for a local file called testResponse.json if found then returns the content of the file (assumed to be JSON) otherwise it reflects back in the body, the received header and body.  This reflection makes it extremely easy to see how the policies have changed the inbound call.  The content is also logged to the console – making it easy to also see what came through to the back end.

The implementation also assumes port 8080, but changing the port is exceptionally easy.

There one enhancement planned, and this is to allow the response test payload to be handled as XML.  This will need a little tweaking of the code as presently a JSON Object is currently stringified.

JavaScriptThe code is also available in my GitHub repository – https://github.com/mp3monster/Utils/blob/master/PlatformTest.js and an example test response file is at https://github.com/mp3monster/Utils/blob/master/testResponse.json

const http = require('http');
const fs = require('fs');

// create a simple HTTP server that will handle the requests
http.createServer((request, response) => {
const { headers, method, url } = request;
console.log("Called at " + new Date().toLocaleDateString());
let body = [];
request.on('error', (err) => {
console.log("Svr Error Handler :" + err.toString);
response.statusCode(400);
response.end();
}).on('data', (chunk) => {
body.push(chunk);
}).on('end', () => {
body = Buffer.concat(body).toString();
// At this point, we have the headers, method, url and body, and can now
// do whatever we need to in order to respond to this request.

});

// record in the console what details have been received
console.log ("Received:\nMethod:" + method.toString() +
"\n URL:"+ url.toString + "\nheaders:\n"+headers.toString() +
"\nBody:\n" + body);
// now build the response
response.setHeader('Content-Type', 'application/json');
response.setHeader('PlatformTestTime', new Date().toLocaleDateString());

// initialise our response object so that if we don't load a response
// file then we reflect the content
var responseBody = { headers, method, url, body };

try {
// try reading a response file
fs.readFile('testResponse.json', function(err, data) {
console.log("handling file");
if (err != null) {
if (err.code === 'ENOENT') {
console.log("on return file - will reflect");
} else {
console.log("Read error:" + err.toString());
}
} else {
// a file exists - but is empty?
if ((data != null) && (data.length > 0)) {
// we have a file with content - lets process so it into a JSON
// object
if (Buffer.isBuffer(data)) {
// convert the buffer from hex to an ASCII string
body = data.toString('utf8');
console.log("test response:" + body);
responseBody = JSON.parse(body);
}
}
}

// create an array with our values and then make it

// JSON with stringfy

var output = JSON.stringify(responseBody);
response.write(output);
console.log("Returning:" + output);
response.statusCode = 200;
response.end();

});

} catch (err) {

if (err.code === 'ENOENT') {
console.log("on return file - will reflect");
} else {
console.log(err.toString());
}
var output = JSON.stringify(responseBody);
response.write(output);
console.log("Returning:" + output);
response.statusCode = 200;
response.end();
}
}).listen(8080); // Activates this server, listening on port 8080.