Web API Design - General Approaches

Web API Design - General Approaches

6 min read
Simon Coope
Simon Coope

Table of Contents

Web API Design Principles

The following is a quick discussion around the design principles/processes I've found important when I'm creating a Web API.

I've also created a sample .NET Core Web API Project to illustrate some of the implementation details discussed below. This can be accessed on Github.


REST is a set of constraints that ensure a scalable, fault-tolerant and extendible system. In the context of Web APIs, REST can be thought of as an architectural style for designing networked resources that communicate via a transfer protocol (usually HTTP).

There are 6 REST constraints: client-server; stateless; cacheable; layered system and uniform interface. While all are significant, the uniform interface is fundamental to the design of the API.

The uniform interface defines the contract between the client and server. Therefore, we should work to ensure this is simple and that the client is in no way coupled to the archtitecture of the server. This is achieved by ensuring the following:

  • Use URIs as resource identifiers (e.g. api/products).
  • Manipulate resources through transfer methods (e.g. HTTP Get, HTTP Post, HTTP Put, etc.)
  • Expose the outcome of operations via predefined statuses (e.g. OK - 200, Internal Server Error - 500, etc.)

To achieve the above, I've always found it useful to consider the following areas.


Although it may occasionally feel wrong I would always suggest pluralising the name of a URI. There are other reasons for this, one of which is that it's more intuitive in the long run to work with an API like "api/products/10" than "api/product/10".


The operation to perform on an API is constructed of the URI and the HTTP method. The main HTTP methods use are:

HTTP MethodDescription
GETUsed to get a list of resources or a specific resource.
POSTCreate a new resource.
PUTUpdate an existing resource.
PATCHPartially update an existing resource.
DELETEDelete a resource.


The reponse of an operation should include a HTTP Status code and (depending on the HTTP method - POST, PUT or PATCH) a representation of the resource (e.g. in JSON or XML). Some examples of scenarios and expected responses is shown below.

HTTP MethodExample URLHTTP StatusDescription
GET/api/products200 OKSuccess - Records Returned
500 Server ErrorFailed - An error occurred on the server
GET/api/products/1200 OKSuccess - Selected resource returned
400 Bad RequestFailed - The request was incorrect
404 Not FoundFailed - The selected resource was not found
500 Server ErrorFailed - An error occurred on the server
POST/api/products200 OKSuccess - The resource was created and will be returned
400 Bad RequestFailed - The resource could not be created.
500 Server ErrorFailed - An error occurred on the server
PUT/api/products/1200 OKSuccess - The resource was updated and will be returned
404 Not FoundFailed - The resource could not be found.
400 Bad RequestFailed - The resource could not be updated.
500 Server ErrorFailed - An error occurred on the server
PATCH/api/products/1200 OKSuccess - The resource was updated and will be returned
404 Not FoundFailed - The resource could not be found.
400 Bad RequestFailed - The resource could not be updated.
500 Server ErrorFailed - An error occurred on the server
DELETE/api/products/1204 No ContentSuccess - The resource was deleted.
404 Not FoundFailed - The resource could not be found.
400 Bad RequestFailed - The resource could not be deleted.
500 Server ErrorFailed - An error occurred on the server

Please Note: Some return codes are debatable, for example, using 400 - Bad Request when we can't create/update/delete a resource isn't strictly correct. We could instead us 409 - Conflict, which may be more accurate as there may be a conflict because the resource already exists (in the case of create or update). However, the W3C specification for 400 - Bad Request indicates that the client should not retry the operation, while the 409 - Conflict specification suggests the client should be able to resolve the conflict and resubmit the request. So in this case we don't really want the client to retry the operation as they'll have the same results, hence I've tended towards using 400 - Bad Request.


It's really important to provide documentation of your API. It's even better if this is done automatically via some tool that can interpret you're API and document the request and response contracts for you.

There are many tools available, but one of the best is Swashbuckle/Swagger.

This lets us create APIs, that are then easy to test locally via the Swagger UI. We can also add additional metadata to an API action method to add further information accessible via Swagger.

/// <summary>
/// Add new student
/// </summary>
/// <param name="student">Student Model</param>
/// <remarks>Insert new student</remarks>
/// <response code="400">Bad request</response>
/// <response code="500">Internal Server Error</response>

Data Sorting and Paging

Depending on the requirements for the API, it may be useful to provide a mechanism to sort and page data for the main GET action. This is generally a simple operation and when dealing with larger data sets can be combined with a caching approach to ensure optimum performance and also removing the need for processing by the consumer.

When implementing paging, it's also important to consider how to return paging metadata back to the consumer. This is best achieved by adding a header into the response, for example:

HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: application/json; charset=utf-8
Server: Kestrel
X-Pagination: {"currentPage":2,"pageSize":2,"recordCount":5,"totalPages":3}
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 09:01:56 GMT

[{"id":1,"name":"Cricket Bat","price":22.99},{"id":5,"name":"Gloves","price":8.76}]

The X-Pagination header contains the paging metadata useful to a consumer of the API. We could extend this information by also including links to the next and previous operations usually performed when moving between pages of data.


When working with a RESTful API it's important to de-couple the validation of input objects from the controller logic. This ensures we keep our controller actions as lean as possible, and also means we can unit test a validator to give us a fail-safe that catches any changes to model objects or validation requirements.

A really useful package to achieve this is FluentValidation. This library lets us separate out the code to perform validation but also uses a fluent interface which makes the validation code easy to read and understand.

public ProductValidator()
    RuleFor(product => product.Id).NotEqual(0);
    RuleFor(product => product.Name).NotEmpty();
    RuleFor(product => product.Price).NotEqual(0);


In the case of versioning your API, there are 4 main approaches.


This approach uses the URI to provide different routes to different versions. For example, /api/v1/products or /api/v2/products. This approach is simple to implement and favours the developer because it's easier to jump between different versions. However, this approach breaks REST principles because the URL should represent the resource. Meaning we should always be able to request a resource from /api/products and not a different version of a resource from /api/v1/products.

Custom Request Header

In this approach we add a custom header to the request, for example _"api-version: 2". Overall, this approach is more complicated than versioning via the URI. It means we can't just send someone a URL to test our new version, instead they have to construct the request in the correct way to access the newly versioned resource.

It does, however, mean that we can have very granular control of which resources are versioned and how they are consumed.

Though, overall this approach is more work and more difficult to test as we're adding a new header to the request.

Content Negotiation

The content negotiation approach consists of changing the accept-header used to specify the format of the response data. For example:

Accept: application/json

Accept: application/vnd.domain.v2+json

Using this approach the accept header follows media type specifications providing a "vendor tree", which is indicated by the vnd prefix. Then we supply a domain name and the version number, before finally specifying the content type we want returned (in this case json).

I personally prefer this approach because it means we don't have to version an entire API (i.e. all services) when a single resource/service has changed. Meaning it gives us more granular control over updates to APIs, where a new version could be released and as long as there are no breaking changes, the consumer isn't affected until they opt to upgrade to the new version. It also means we don't have to maintain different routing rules to direct consumers to the correct version of the API (as with the URI versioning approach).


We could also, of course, implement a strategy that is a mixture of the above approaches. For example, having the major version specified in the URI and the minor version in the accept-header. But in my opinion this approach offers uneccessary complexity and is very easy for consumers and developers to get wrong.


There are far more areas of Web API design that could also be discussed (e.g. HATEOS, caching, response compression, etc.) but for now the above is sufficient to indicate some of the best practices I've found while working on these types of APIs in the past.