REST is the underlying architectural principle of the web. The amazing thing about the web is the fact that clients (browsers) and servers can interact in complex ways without the client knowing anything beforehand about the server and the resources it hosts. The key constraint is that the server and client must both agree on the media used, which in the case of the web is HTML.
An API that adheres to the principles of REST does not require the client to know anything about the structure of the API. Rather, the server needs to provide whatever information the client needs to interact with the service. An HTML form is an example of this: The server specifies the location of the resource and the required fields. The browser doesn't know in advance where to submit the information, and it doesn't know in advance what information to submit. Both forms of information are entirely supplied by the server. (This principle is called HATEOAS: Hypermedia As The Engine Of Application State.)
So, how does this apply to HTTP, and how can it be implemented in practice? HTTP is oriented around verbs and resources. The two verbs in mainstream usage are GET and POST, which I think everyone will recognize. However, the HTTP standard defines several others such as PUT and DELETE. These verbs are then applied to resources, according to the instructions provided by the server.
For example, Let's imagine that we have a user database that is managed by a web service. Our service uses a custom hypermedia based on JSON, for which we assign the mimetype application/json+userdb (There might also be an application/xml+userdb and application/whatever+userdb - many media types may be supported). The client and the server have both been programmed to understand this format, but they don't know anything about each other. As Roy Fielding points out:
A REST API should spend almost all of its descriptive effort in
defining the media type(s) used for representing resources and driving
application state, or in defining extended relation names and/or
hypertext-enabled mark-up for existing standard media types.
A request for the base resource / might return something like this:
Request
GET /
Accept: application/json+userdb
Response
200 OK
Content-Type: application/json+userdb
{
"version": "1.0",
"links": [
{
"href": "/user",
"rel": "list",
"method": "GET"
},
{
"href": "/user",
"rel": "create",
"method": "POST"
}
]
}
We know from the description of our media that we can find information about related resources from sections called "links". This is called Hypermedia controls. In this case, we can tell from such a section that we can find a user list by making another request for /user:
Request
GET /user
Accept: application/json+userdb
Response
200 OK
Content-Type: application/json+userdb
{
"users": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Emil",
"country: "Sweden",
"links": [
{
"href": "/user/1",
"rel": "self",
"method": "GET"
},
{
"href": "/user/1",
"rel": "edit",
"method": "PUT"
},
{
"href": "/user/1",
"rel": "delete",
"method": "DELETE"
}
]
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Adam",
"country: "Scotland",
"links": [
{
"href": "/user/2",
"rel": "self",
"method": "GET"
},
{
"href": "/user/2",
"rel": "edit",
"method": "PUT"
},
{
"href": "/user/2",
"rel": "delete",
"method": "DELETE"
}
]
}
],
"links": [
{
"href": "/user",
"rel": "create",
"method": "POST"
}
]
}
We can tell a lot from this response. For instance, we now know we can create a new user by POSTing to /user:
Request
POST /user
Accept: application/json+userdb
Content-Type: application/json+userdb
{
"name": "Karl",
"country": "Austria"
}
Response
201 Created
Content-Type: application/json+userdb
{
"user": {
"id": 3,
"name": "Karl",
"country": "Austria",
"links": [
{
"href": "/user/3",
"rel": "self",
"method": "GET"
},
{
"href": "/user/3",
"rel": "edit",
"method": "PUT"
},
{
"href": "/user/3",
"rel": "delete",
"method": "DELETE"
}
]
},
"links": {
"href": "/user",
"rel": "list",
"method": "GET"
}
}
We also know that we can change existing data:
Request
PUT /user/1
Accept: application/json+userdb
Content-Type: application/json+userdb
{
"name": "Emil",
"country": "Bhutan"
}
Response
200 OK
Content-Type: application/json+userdb
{
"user": {
"id": 1,
"name": "Emil",
"country": "Bhutan",
"links": [
{
"href": "/user/1",
"rel": "self",
"method": "GET"
},
{
"href": "/user/1",
"rel": "edit",
"method": "PUT"
},
{
"href": "/user/1",
"rel": "delete",
"method": "DELETE"
}
]
},
"links": {
"href": "/user",
"rel": "list",
"method": "GET"
}
}
Notice that we are using different HTTP verbs (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE etc.) to manipulate these resources, and that the only knowledge we presume on the client's part is our media definition.
Further reading:
(This answer has been the subject of a fair amount of criticism for missing the point. For the most part, that has been a fair critique. What I originally described was more in line with how REST was usually implemented a few years ago when I first wrote this, rather than its true meaning. I've revised the answer to better represent the real meaning.)
My take to describe this in a more accessible way...
In order to understand what Apache Camel is, you need to understand what are Enterprise Integration Patterns.
Let's start with what we presumably already know: The Singleton pattern, the Factory pattern, etc; They are merely ways of organizing your solution to the problem, but they are not solutions themselves. These patterns were analyzed and extracted for the rest of us by the Gang of Four, when they published their book: Design Patterns. They saved some of us tremendous effort in thinking of how to best structure our code.
Much like the Gang of Four, Gregor Hohpe and Bobby Woolf authored the book Enterprise Integration Patterns (EIP) in which they propose and document a set of new patterns and blueprints for how we could best design large component-based systems, where components can be running on the same process or in a different machine.
They basically propose that we structure our system to be message oriented -- where components communicate with each others using messages as inputs and outputs and absolutely nothing else. They show us a complete set of patterns that we may choose from and implement in our different components that will together form the whole system.
So what is Apache Camel?
Apache Camel offers you the interfaces for the EIPs, the base objects, commonly needed implementations, debugging tools, a configuration system, and many other helpers which will save you a ton of time when you want to implement your solution to follow the EIPs.
Take MVC. MVC is pretty simple in theory and we could implement it without any framework help. But good MVC frameworks provide us with the structure ready-to-use and have gone the extra mile and thought out all the other "side" things you need when you create a large MVC project and that's why we use them most of the time.
That's exactly what Apache Camel is for EIPs. It's a complete production-ready framework for people who want to implement their solution to follow the EIPs.
Best Answer
Forget about XML. Forget about WSDL. SOA is not a technology you can buy, though it's often marketed that way.
The real point of SOA is all about IT organization. The point of SOA is to avoid having a huge bunch of "applications" that have isolated data pools and either don't talk to each other at all (and thus often duplicate data), or only in an inefficient, buggy way through adapter layers or EAI systems.
For large companies, this is a serious problem - they have literally hundreds of separate apps that are insufficiently integrated. There's duplicate and inconsistent data everywhere and the result is that customers get pissed off and real money is lost because the billing department keeps sending invoices for a cancelled order and the customer service rep can't even find the order because it's cancelled in the order tracking system, but not the billing system.
SOA is supposed to solve this by designing every app from the ground up to publish its services in a standardized, cross-platfrom manner so that other apps can access the data and don't have to duplicate it.
From a business perspective, this is highly desirable. The buzzword hype and the acronym soup is just IT companies' attempts to cash in on that desirability. Unfortunately, this has (mis)led many people, including CEOs into believing that SOA is a product you can buy and it will magically make your IT more efficient, without realizing that this will only happen if you also reorganize your entire IT (and quite possibly your business units as well) to be SOA-compatible.