在RESTful API中使用会话真的违反了RESTful吗?我已经看到了许多意见，但我不相信会议是不安宁的。在我看来:
rest不禁止身份验证(否则在RESTful服务中几乎没有用处)
身份验证是通过在请求中发送一个身份验证令牌来完成的，通常是头
这个身份验证令牌需要以某种方式获得，并且可能会被撤销，在这种情况下需要更新
身份验证令牌需要由服务器验证(否则就不是身份验证)
那么会话是如何违背这一点的呢?
客户端，会话是使用cookie实现的
cookie只是一个额外的HTTP报头
会话cookie可以在任何时候获得和撤销
如果需要，会话cookie可以有无限的生存时间
会话id(身份验证令牌)在服务器端得到验证
As such, to the client, a session cookie is exactly the same as any other HTTP header based authentication mechanism, except that it uses the Cookie header instead of the Authorization or some other proprietary header. If there was no session attached to the cookie value server-side, why would that make a difference? The server side implementation does not need to concern the client as long as the server behaves RESTful. As such, cookies by themselves should not make an API RESTless, and sessions are simply cookies to the client.
我的假设错了吗?是什么使会话cookie不安分?
HTTP事务，基本访问身份验证，不适合RBAC，因为基本访问身份验证每次都使用加密的用户名:密码进行标识，而RBAC中需要的是用户希望用于特定调用的Role。
RBAC不验证用户名上的权限，但验证角色上的权限。
您可以像这样进行连接:usernameRole:password，但这是一种糟糕的做法，而且效率也很低，因为当一个用户拥有更多角色时，身份验证引擎将需要在连接中测试所有角色，并且每次调用都需要再次测试。这将破坏RBAC最大的技术优势之一，即非常快速的授权测试。
因此，使用基本的访问身份验证无法解决这个问题。
为了解决这个问题，会话维护是必要的，根据一些回答，这似乎与REST相矛盾。
这就是我喜欢REST不应被视为宗教的答案。在复杂的业务案例中，例如在医疗保健领域，RBAC是绝对常见和必要的。如果他们不被允许使用REST，那将是一个遗憾，因为所有的REST工具设计者都将REST视为一种宗教。
对我来说，在HTTP上维护会话的方法并不多。可以使用带有sessionId的cookie，也可以使用带有sessionId的报头。
如果有人有别的想法，我很乐意听听。
首先，REST不是宗教，不应该被当作宗教来对待。虽然REST式服务有很多优点，但您应该只在应用程序有意义时才遵循REST的原则。
That said, authentication and client side state do not violate REST principles. While REST requires that state transitions be stateless, this is referring to the server itself. At the heart, all of REST is about documents. The idea behind statelessness is that the SERVER is stateless, not the clients. Any client issuing an identical request (same headers, cookies, URI, etc) should be taken to the same place in the application. If the website stored the current location of the user and managed navigation by updating this server side navigation variable, then REST would be violated. Another client with identical request information would be taken to a different location depending on the server-side state.
Google's web services are a fantastic example of a RESTful system. They require an authentication header with the user's authentication key to be passed upon every request. This does violate REST principles slightly, because the server is tracking the state of the authentication key. The state of this key must be maintained and it has some sort of expiration date/time after which it no longer grants access. However, as I mentioned at the top of my post, sacrifices must be made to allow an application to actually work. That said, authentication tokens must be stored in a way that allows all possible clients to continue granting access during their valid times. If one server is managing the state of the authentication key to the point that another load balanced server cannot take over fulfilling requests based on that key, you have started to really violate the principles of REST. Google's services ensure that, at any time, you can take an authentication token you were using on your phone against load balance server A and hit load balance server B from your desktop and still have access to the system and be directed to the same resources if the requests were identical.
归根结底，您需要确保您的身份验证令牌是针对某种类型的备份存储(数据库、缓存等)进行验证的，以确保您尽可能多地保留REST属性。
我希望你能理解。如果你还没有，你也应该看看维基百科文章中关于具象状态转移的约束部分。关于REST的原则实际上在争论什么以及为什么争论，它特别具有启发性。
