In a complicated API, it can be quite difficult to parse business rules. Often, the PUT endpoint becomes overloaded with every possible thing that can happen to a domain object. Let’s look at something simple like a task list. Our traditional REST API would look something like this.

GET     /api/tasks


For CRUD operations, there’s nothing wrong with this type of architecture. However, once our application becomes sufficiently complicated, an edit is more than just an edit.

Suppose our task object belongs to queues. Suppose it can be assigned and reassigned. Suppose there is a complex workflow, requiring that statuses are updated in a given order. Suppose you are doing soft deletes with a “trash bin”, and the DELETE endpoint is what really destroys a record. Suppose that there are many types of actions that may be performed on a task have side effects beyond the basic data operations: invalidating caches, triggering emails, or kicking off automated report generation.

If we place all of this potential logic in the PUT endpoint, figuring out what happened can become a nightmare.

PUT /api/tasks/4823613
{
assignedTo: 7243,
createdAt: 'Tue Apr 5 2016 15:36:38 GMT-0400 (EDT)',
deleted: false,
description: 'This is a sample task for the blog post',
id: 4823613,
queue: 315,
startedAt: 'Wed May 25 2016 07:54:12 GMT-0400 (EDT)',
status: 'In Progress'
}


If that’s your PUT data, what happened? A status change? Assigned to a different user? Was the task assigned to a different queue? If this were a simple CRUD operation, we wouldn’t care. We’d just send an UPDATE command to a database and go about our lives.

UPDATE tasks
SET assignedTo = $1, deleted =$2, description = $3, queue =$4, startedAt = $5, status =$6
WHERE id = \$7;


Not really a whole lot going on there worth considering. However, once we start adding business rules to the application, this is an insufficient solution.

### Switching to Remote Procedure Calls

One obvious solution is to use remote procedure calls (RPC). This would give us a slightly modified endpoint, like

PUT /api/tasks/:id/:action


I see absolutely nothing wrong with this approach, most API developers tend to prefer the simpler URIs of REST. As is difficult in software development, naming things is difficult, and lots of developers have lots of opinions on how endpoints should be named. Here are a few bad examples.

// Redundant resource identification.

// Why not just use the DELETE endpoint?

// Not a verb.


Also, this creates a lot of endpoints for your API. All significant business actions for all of your resources get their own endpoint.

### How would we fix this scenario?

Don’t PUT updates; instead POST actions.

POST /api/actions
{
assignedTo: 7243,
}


With this type of architecture, determining what happened is a no-brainer.

app.post('/api/actions', (request, response, next) => {
var actionHandler = getActionFor(request.data.type);
return actionHandler.handle(request)
.then(result => {
return response.status(result.status || 200).json(result.data);
})
.catch(next);
});


This makes for an incredibly simple API layer. Every action that can happen in your application is completely encapsulated into its own function (perhaps with helper functions). An action handler would (roughly) look like the following.

module.exports = {
canHandle: canHandle,
handle: handle
};

function canHandle(type) {
}

function handle(request) {
let aggregate = {
request: request
};
return validateRequest(aggregate)
.then(fetchUserById)
.then(ensureUserIsActive)
.then(sendEmailToAssignedUser)
.then(returnResult);
}

function fetchUserById(aggregate) {
return User.findById(aggregate.request.data.assignedTo)
.then(function (user) {
aggregate.assignedTo = user;
return aggregate;
});
}

// All helper and private functions are written as promises with the following
// pattern.
//
// function (aggregate) {
//   return Promise.resolve(aggregate);
// }
//
// fetchUserById is given as an example of this. All other helper functions are
// left as an exercise for the reader.


Now, if there is ever a change to what should happen when a task is assigned, this modification happens is one place, and this change is not mixed in with myriad other concerns lurking inside a single PUT function.

All reasonably complex applications eventually move toward event-driven programming. Why? It’s just plain cleaner. It keeps actions isolated. As complexity increases, keeping actions isolated becomes a much more significant priority. As your application continues to grow, this opens the door to using queues and messaging to migrate your application into separate processes.

Separation of concerns for the win!