The Year of Blogging Dangerously


Wow, has it been a year already? I am faking surprise, of course, because WordPress has notified me well ahead of time that I need to renew my domain. So in actuality I said ‘wow, will it soon be a year of me blogging’. Nevertheless, the sentiment is genuine.

It may be worthwhile to look back at the year, if only to reaffirm how quickly things change in this industry of ours, and also to notice some about-faces, changes of direction and mind.

I started blogging in the intent to stay true to the etymological sense of the word ‘blog’ (Web log). As a weekly diary of sorts, it was supposed to chronicle trials and tribulations of our team as it boldly goes into the tumultuous waters of writing Web apps in the cloud. I settled on a weekly delivery, which is at times doable, at other times a nightmare. I could definitely do without an onset of panic when I realize that it is Monday and I forgot to write a new entry.

Luckily we have enough issues we deal with daily in our work to produce enough material for the blog. In that regard, we are like a person who just moved into a new condo after his old apartment went up in flames and went to Ikea. If an eager clerk asks him ‘what do you need in particular’, his genuine answer must be ‘everything – curtains, rugs, new mattress, a table, chairs, a sofa, a coffee table …’.

At least that’s how we felt – we were re-doing everything in our distributed system and we were able to re-use very little from our past lives, having boldly decided to jump ahead as far as possible and start clean.

Getting things out of the system

That does not mean that the blog actually started with a theme or a direction. In the inaugural post The Turtleneck and The Hoodie, I proudly declared that I care both about development AND the design and refuse to choose. But that is not necessarily a direction to sustain a blog. It was not an issue for a while due to all these ideas that were bouncing in my head waiting to be written down. Looking back, I think it sort of worked in a general-purpose, ‘good advice’ kind of way. Posts such as Pulling Back from Extreme AJAX or A Guide to Storage for ADD Types were at least very technical and based on actual research and hands-on experience.

Some of the posts were just accumulated professional experience that I felt the need to share. Don’t Get Attached to Your Code or Dumb Code Good, Smart Code Bad were crowd pleasers, at least in the ‘yeah, it happened to me too’ way. Kind of like reading that in order to lose weight you need to eat smart and go outside. Makes a lot of sense except for the execution, which is the hard part.


Old man yells at the cloud

Funnily enough, some of my posts, after using up all the accumulated wisdom to pass on, sound somewhat cranky in hindsight. I guess I disagreed with some ideas and directions I noticed, and the world ignored my disagreement and continued, unimpressed. How dare people do things I don’t approve of!

Two cranky posts that are worth highlighting are Swimming Against the Tide, in which I am cranky regarding client side MVC frameworks, and Sitting on the Node.js Fence, in which I argue with myself on pros and cons of Node.js. While my subsequent posts clearly demonstrate that I resolved the latter dilemma and went down the Node.js route hook, line and sinker, I am still not convinced that all that JavaScript required to write non-trivial Single Page Apps (SPAs) is a very good idea, particularly if you have any ambition to run them on mobile devices. But it definitely sounds funny to me now – as if I was expressing an irritated disbelief that, after publishing all the bad consequences of practicing extreme Ajax, people still keep doing it!

I heart Node.js

Of course, once our team went down Node.js route (egged on and cajoled by me), you could not get me to shut up about it. In fact, the gateway drug to it was my focus on templating solutions, and our choice of Dust.js (LinkedIn fork). By the way, it is becoming annoying to keep adding ‘LinkedIn fork’ all the time – that’s the only version that is actively worked on anyway.

Articles from this period are more-less setting the standard for my subsequent posts: they are about 1500 words long, have a mix of outgoing links, a focused technical topic, illustrative embedded tweets (thanks to @cra who taught me how not to embed tweets as images like a loser). As no story about Node.js apps is complete without Web Sockets and clustering, and both were dully covered.


I know micro-services!

Of course, it was not until I went to attend NodeDay in February that a torrent of posts on micro-services was unleashed. The first half of 2014 was all ablaze with the posts and tweets about micro-services around the world anyway, which my new Internet buddy Adrian Rossouw dully documented in his Wayfinder field guide. It was at times comical to follow food fights about who will provide the bestest definition of them all:

If you follow a micro-services tag for my blog, the list of posts is long and getting longer every week. At some point I will stop tagging posts with it, because if everything is about them, nothing is – I need to be more specific. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the whole topic – it did after all allow me to write the most popular post so far: Node.js and Enterprise – Why Not?


What does the future hold?

Obviously Node.js, messaging and micro-services will continue to dominate our short-term horizon as we are wrestling with them daily. I spoke about them at the recent DevCon5 in NYC and intend to do the same at the upcoming in September.

Beyond that, I can see some possible future topics (although I can’t promise anything – it is enough to keep up as it is).

  • Reactive programming – I have recently presented at the first Toronto Reactive meetup, and noticed this whole area of Scala and Akka that is a completely viable alternative to implement micro-services and scalable distributed systems that confirm to the tenets of Reactive Manifesto. I would like to probe further.
  • Go language – not only because TJ decided to go that route, having an alternative to Node.js while implementing individual micro-services is a great thing, particularly for API and back-end services (I still prefer Node.js for Web serving apps).
  • Libchan – Docker’s new project (like Go channels over the network) currently requires Go (duh) but I am sure Node.js version will follow.
  • – I know, I know, I have expressed my concerns about their approach, but I did the same with Node.js and look at me now.
  • Swift – I am a registered XCode developer and have the Swift-enabled update to it. If only I could find some time to actually create some native iOS apps. Maybe I will like Swift more than I do Objective-C.

I would like to read this post in a year and see if any of these bullets panned out (or were instead replaced with a completely different list of even newer and cooler things). In this industry, I would not be surprised.

Whatever I am writing about, I would like to thank you for your support and attention so far and hope to keep holding it just a little bit longer. Now if you excuse me, I need to post this – I am already late this week!

© Dejan Glozic, 2014

Node.js Apps and Periodic Tasks


When working on a distributed system of any size, sooner or later you will hit a problem and proclaim ‘well, this is a first’. My second proclamation in such situations is ‘this is a nice topic for the blog’. Truth to form, I do it again, this time with the issue of running periodic tasks, and the twist that clustering and high availability efforts add to the mix.

First, to frame the problem: a primary pattern you will surely encounter in a Web application is Request/Response. It is a road well traveled. Any ‘Hello, World’ web app is waving you a hello in a response to your request.

Now add clustering to the mix. You want to ensure that no matter what is happening to the underlying hardware, or how many people hunger for your ‘hello’, you will be able to deliver. You add more instances of your app, and they ‘divide and conquer’ the incoming requests. No cry for a warm reply is left unanswered.

Then you decide that you want to tell a more complex message to the world because that’s the kind of person you are: complex and multifaceted. You don’t want to be reduced to a boring slogan. You store a long and growing list of replies in a database. Because you are busy and have no time for standing up databases, you use one hosted by somebody else, already set up for high availability. Then each of your clustered nodes talk to the same database. You set the ‘message of the day’ marker, and every node fetches it. Thousands of people receive the same message.

Because we are writing our system in Node.js, there are several ways to do this, and I have already written about it. Of course, a real system is not an exercise in measuring HWPS (Hello World Per Second). We want to perform complex tasks, serve a multitude of pages, provide APIs and be flexible and enable parallel development by multiple teams. We use micro-services to do all this, and life is good.

I have also written about the need to use messaging in a micro-service system to bring down the inter-service chatter. When we added clustering into the mix, we discovered that we need to pay special attention to ensure task dispatching similar to what Node.js clustering or proxy load balancing is providing us. We found our solution in round-robin dispatching provided by worker queues.

Timers are something else

Then we hit timers. As long as information flow in a distributed system is driven by user events, clustering works well because dispatching policies (most often round-robin) are implemented by both the Node.js clustering and proxy load balancer. However, there is a distinct class of tasks in a distributed system that is not user-driven: periodic tasks.

Periodic tasks are tasks that are done on a timer, outside of any external stimulus. There are many reasons why you would want to do it, but most periodic tasks service databases. In a FIFO of a limited size, they delete old entries, collapse duplicates, extract data for analysis, report them to other services etc.

For periodic tasks, there are two key problems to solve:

  1. Something needs to count the time and initiate triggers
  2. Tasks need to be written to execute when initiated by these triggers

The simplest way to trigger the tasks is known by every Unix admin – cron. You set up a somewhat quirky cron table, and tasks are executed according to the schedule.

The actual job to execute needs to be provided as a command line task, which means your app that normally accesses the database needs to provide additional CLI entry point sharing most of the code. This is important in order to keep with the factor XII from the 12-factors, which insists one-off tasks need to share the same code and config as the long running processes.


There are two problems with cron in the context of the cloud:

  1. If the machine running cron jobs malfunctions, all the periodic tasks will stop
  2. If you are running your system on a PaaS, you don’t have access to the OS in order to set up cron

The first problem is not a huge issue since these jobs run only periodically and normally provide online status when done – it is relatively easy for an admin to notice when they stop. For high availability and failover, Google has experimented with a tool called rcron for setting up cron over a cluster of machines.

Node cron

The second problem is more serious – in a PaaS, you will need to rely on a solution that involves your apps. This means we will need to set up a small app just to run an alternative to cron that is PaaS friendly. As usual, there are several options, but node-cron library seems fairly popular and has graduated past the version 1.0. If you run it in an app backed by supervisor or PM2, it will keep running and executing tasks.

You can execute tasks in the same app where node-cron is running, providing these tasks have enough async calls themselves to allow the event queue to execute other callbacks in the app. However, if the tasks are CPU intensive, this will block the event queue and should be extracted out.

A good way of solving this problem would be to hook up the app running node-cron to the message broker such as RabbitMQ (which we already use for other MQ needs in our micro-service system anyway). The only thing node-cron app will do is publish task requests to the predefined topics. The workers listening to these topics should do the actual work:


The problem with this approach is that a new task request can arrive while a worker has not finished running the previous task. Care should be taken to avoid workers stepping over each other.

Interestingly enough, a hint at this approach can be found in aforementioned 12-factors, in the section on concurrency. You will notice a ‘clock’ app in the picture, indicating an app whose job is to ‘poke’ other apps at periodic intervals.

There can be only one

A ‘headless’ version of this approach can be achieved by running multiple apps in a cluster and letting them individually keep track of periodic tasks by calling ‘setTimeout’. Since these apps share nothing, they will run according to the local server clock that may nor may not be in sync with other servers. All the apps may attempt to execute the same task (since they are clones of each other). In order to prevent duplication, each app should attempt to write a ‘lock’ record in the database before starting. To avoid deadlock, apps should wait random amount of time before retrying.

Obviously, if the lock is already there, apps should fail to create their own. Therefore, only one app will win in securing the lock before executing the task. However, the lock should be set to expire in a small multiple of times required to normally finish the task in order to avoid orphaned locks due to crashed workers. If the worker has not crashed but is just taking longer than usual, it should renew the lock to prevent it from expiring.

The advantage of this approach is that we will only schedule the next task once the current one has finished, avoiding the problem that the worker queue approach has.

Note that in this approach, we are not achieving scalability, just high availability. Of the several running apps, at least one app will succeed in securing the lock and executing the task. The presence of other apps ensures execution but does not increase scalability.

I have conveniently omitted many details about writing and removing the lock, retries etc.


I guarantee you that once you start dealing with periodic tasks, you will be surprised with the complexity of executing them in the cloud. A mix of cloud, clustering and high availability makes running periodic tasks a fairly non-trivial problem. Limitations of PaaS environments compound this complexity.

If you visit TJ’s tweet above, you will find dozen of people offering alternatives in the replies (most of them being variations of *ron). The plethora of different solutions will be a dead giveaway that this is a thorny problem. It is not fully solved today (at least not in the context of the cloud and micro-service systems), hence so many alternatives. If you use something that works well for you, do share in the ‘Reply’ section.

© Dejan Glozic, 2014 Mind the Gap

Wikimedia Commons, 'Mind the Gap', 2008, Clicsouris
Wikimedia Commons, ‘Mind the Gap’, 2008, Clicsouris

Welcome to our regular edition of ‘ version 1.0 watch’ or ‘Making sure Guillermo Rauch is busy working on 1.0 instead of whatever he does to pay the rent that does nothing for me’. I am happy to inform you that 1.0 is now available, with the new logo and everything. Nice job!

With that piece of good news, back to our regular programming. First, a flashback. When I was working on my doctoral studies in London, England, one of the most memorable trivia was a dramatic voice on the London Underground PA system warning me to ‘Mind the Gap’. Since then I seldomly purchase my clothes in The Gap, choosing its more upmarket sibling Banana Republic. JCrew is fine too. A few years ago a friend went to London to study and she emailed me that passengers are still reminded about the dangers of The Gap.

We have recently experienced a curious problem in our usage of WebSockets – our own gap to mind, as it were. It involves a topology I have already written about. You will most likely hit it too, so here it goes:

  1. A back-end system uses message queue to pass messages about state changes that affect the UI
  2. A micro-service serves a Web page containing client that turns around and establishes a connection with the server once page has been loaded
  3. In the time gap between the page has been served and the client calls back to establish a WebSockets connection, new messages arrive that are related to the content on the page.
  4. By the time the WebSockets connection has been established, any number of messages will have been missed – a message gap of sorts.
WebSockets gap: in the period of time from HTTP GET response to the establishment of the WebSockets connection, msg1 and msg2 were missed. The client will receive messages starting from the msg3.

The gap may or may not be a problem for you depending on how you are using the message broker to pass messages around micro-services. As I have already written in the post about REST/MQTT mirroring, we are using MQTT to augment the REST API. This augmentation mirrors the CRUD verbs that result in state change (CUD). The devil is in the details here, and the approach taken will decide whether the ‘message gap’ is going to affect you or not.

When deciding what to publish to the subscribers using MQ, we can take two approaches:

  1. Assume subscribers have made a REST call to establish the baseline state, and only send deltas. The subscribers will work well as long as the took the baseline and didn’t miss any of the deltas for whatever reason. This is similar to showing a movie on a cable channel in a particular time slot – if you miss it, you miss it.
  2. Don’t assume subscribers have the baseline state. Instead, assume they may have been down or not connected. Send a complete state of the resource alongside the message envelope. This approach is similar to breaking news being repeated many times during the day on a news channel. If you are just joining, you will be up to date soon.

The advantages of the first approach are the message payloads. There is no telling how big JSON resources can be (a problem recently addressed by Tim Bray in his fat JSON blog post). Imagine we are tracking a build resource and it is sending us updates on the progress (20%, 50%, 70%). Do we really want to receive the entire Build resource JSON alongside this message?

On the other hand, the second approach is not inconsistent with the recommendation for PUT and PATCH REST responses. We know that the newly created resource is returned in the response body for POST requests (alongside Location header). However, it is considered a good practice to do the same in the requests for PUT and PATCH. If somebody moves the progress bar of a build by using PATCH to update the ‘progress’ property, the entire build resource will thus be returned in the response body. The service fielding this request can just take that JSON string and also attach it to the message under the ‘state’ property, as we are already doing for POST requests.

Right now we didn’t make up our minds. Sending around entire resources in each message strikes us as wasteful. This message will be copied into each queue of the subscribers listening to it, and if it is durable, will also be persisted. That’a a lot of bites to move around while using a protocol whose main selling point is that it is light on the resources. Imagine pushing these messages to a native mobile client over the air. Casually attaching entire JSON resources to messages is not something you want to do in these situations.

In the end, we solved the problem without changing our ‘baseline + deltas’ approach. We tapped into the fact that messages have unique identifiers attached to them as part of the envelope. Each service that is handling clients via WebSockets has a little buffer of messages that are published by the message broker. When we send the page the client, we also send the ID of the last known message embedded in HTML as data. When WebSockets connection is established, the client will communicate (emit) this message ID to the server, and the server will check the buffer if new messages have arrived since then. If so, it will send those messages immediately, allowing the client to catch up – to ‘bridge the gap’. After it has been caught up, the message traffic resumes as usual.

As a bonus, this approach works for cases where the client drops the WebSockets connection. When connection is re-established, it can use the same approach to catch up on the messages it has missed.

The fix: the service sends the ‘message marker’ (last message id). Client echoes the marker when connecting with WebSockets. Detecting the hole in message sequence, the service immediately sends the missing messages allowing the client to catch up.

As you can see, we are still learning and evolving our REST/MQTT mirroring technique, and we will most likely encounter more face-palm moments like this. The solution is not perfect – in an extreme edge case, the WebSockets connection can take so long that the service message buffer fills up and old messages start dropping off. A solution in those cases is to refresh the browser.

We are also still intrigued with sending the state in all messages – there is something reassuring about it, and the fact that the similarity to PATCH/PUT behavior only reinforces the mirroring aspect is great. Perhaps our resources are not that large, and we are needlessly fretting over the message sizes. On the other hand, when making a REST call, callers can use ‘fields’ and ’embed’ to control the size of the response. Since we don’t know what any potential subscriber will need, we have no choice but to send the entire resource. We need to study that approach more.

That’s it from me this week. Live long, prosper and mind the gap.

© Dejan Glozic, 2014

Is There Life After TJ?


What is going to happen now?
Nothing. We will be sad for a while, then we will move on.


Mad Men, Don Drapper discusses Kennedy assassination with kids

Every once in a while a event occurs that pushes regular programming aside. If you are CNN, it happens with such annoying regularity that completely obviates the meaning of the phrase “breaking news”. Nevertheless, if you are at least a bit involved with the Node.js community, the news that TJ Holowaychuk turned his back on Node in favour of Go restores breaking news’ original meaning.

Up to this point Node.js had a bit of a problem with TJs as soon as TJ Fontaine assumed the post of Node.js lead. You had to add the last name to disambiguate, leading to a no TJ slide at a recent NodeDay. Before Fontaine, the real slim TJ authored such a monstrous number of Node.js modules (some of which, like Express, Jade and Mocha, being wildly popular), that there is a semi-serous thread on Quora that he is not a real person. Proof: total absence from the conference-industrial complex, no pictures, no videos, and inhumane coding output that suggest an army of ghost coders. Also, an abrupt change in import declaration style in 2013.

My first encounter with TJ (metaphorically speaking) was in the summer of 2012, when we evaluated Node.js for our project. Our team lead noticed that an unusually large cluster of modules needed to convert us from a servlet/JSP back end was authored by a single person. There was something unnerving about moving from software written by an army of big company developers to something written by a kid with an Emo haircut and a colorful t-shirt (look like TJ was too busy coding to notice that the official look is now beard and plaid shirt, and does not need prescription glasses to care about Warby Parker).

Unlike many people, I am also not completely gaga about his coding and documentation style. I never warmed up to Jade and Stylus – I spent many an hour tearing my hair out about some unexpected Jade behavior that turned out to be one tab or space too many. Dust.js we now use for our templating needs is much less susceptible to magic in the name of DRY.

Similarly, Express documentation is wonderfully minimalistic until you need some clarification, at which point you would gladly trend it for verbose but useful. Some of the Express APIs suffer from the same problem. You can ‘use’ all kinds of object types, and while ‘set’ is a setter, ‘get’ defines a route for an HTTP endpoint. Not that it matters anyway – an army of developers wrote the missing manual on Stack Overflow.

All this does not diminish the importance and the imprint that TJ left on the Node.js community. The Hacker News discussion was long and involved, with many participants trying to guess the ‘real reason’ behind the switch. Zef Hemel contemplated what he considers a ‘march toward Go’. Other people with an investment in Node.js commented as well:

[tweet 485132339362529280 align=’center’]

For anyone making a transition to Node.js and feeling the cold sweat of ‘buyer’s remorse’, I am offering the following opinion. In a brazen display of self-promotion, I will quote none other than myself from one of my previous posts:

It was always hard for me to make choices. In the archetypical classification of ‘satisficers’ and ‘maximizers’, I definitely fall into the latter camp. I research ad nauseum, read reviews, measure carefully, take everything into account, and then finally make a move, mentally exhausted. Then I burst into cold sweat of buyer’s remorse, or read a less than glowing review of the product I just purchased, and my happiness is dimished. It sucks to be me.

My point here is as follows: at any point in time, there will be many ways to solve your particular software problem. Chances are, you have spent a lot of time researching before pulling the plug on Node.js. You have made the switch, and your app or site is working well, purring like a kitten. I don’t think your app will suddenly start misbehaving just because TJ got a case of code rage. In fact, the signs were on the wall for quite some time because his twitter feed was all ‘Node.js errors this, Node.js errors that’ – lots of frustration about some very arcane details I didn’t understand at all.

If anything, this case teaches us a lesson that it does not pay to search for a language Messiah – a language/platform to end all languages/platforms. As it became plainly obvious, the future is polyglot, and Go is appearing as a growing alternative for writing apps for distributed systems. Even by TJ’s admission, Node.js is still a great choice for Web sites, as well as API services. For example, a whole class of page rendering template libraries are hard to replicate in Go (Mustache, Handlebars, Dust), and so are the building and testing solutions (Grunt, Mocha, Jasmine).

Node.js was never positioned as a platform for solving all kinds of computational problems, and even before Go, distributed systems had apps written in stacks other than Node.js. I think attempts to render Node.js as a solution for every problem were always misguided and no serious member of the Node.js community made such claims. As long as you use Node.js for what it is very good for – page serving apps and API services with a lot of I/O (and not too many CPU intensive, long running tasks), there is no need for TJH to somehow make your app less ‘correct’.

If, on the other hand, you are impressionable and must check out Go right away, by all means do, but if you keep putting all your eggs in a new and shiny basket, people like TJH will continue to stress you out as they move on to another new and shiny language or platform.

If you feel a need to solve a problem that Node.js is failing to solve or is not suitable for, and Go or Scala or any other solution fit the bill, by all means go ahead and use them. Otherwise, move along, people – nothing to see here. We wish TJ all the best in the Go future, while we continue to focus on our own problems and challenges.

I guess that means a ‘Yes, of course’ to the question in the title.

© Dejan Glozic, 2014

Micro-service APIs With Some Swag (part 2)

London Cries: A Man Swaggering, Paul Sandby, 1730
London Cries: A Man Swaggering, Paul Sandby, 1730

Read part 1 of the article.

Last week I delved into the problem of presenting a unified API doc from a distributed system composed of micro-services. In the second installment, we will get our hands dirty with help of Swagger by Wordnik.

A quick recap: the problem we are trying to solve is how to document all the APIs of the system when these APIs are an aggregation of endpoints contributed by individual micro-services. To illustrate the possible solution, we will imagine a distributed system consisting of two micro-services:

  • Projects – this service provides APIs to query update and delete projects (very simplified, of course).
  • Users – this service provides APIs to query and create user profiles. Projects API will make a reference to users when listing project members.

For simplicity, we will choose only a handful of properties and methods. Project model is defined in Swagger like this:

"Project": {
   "id": "Project",
   "description": "A single project model",
   "properties": {
      "name": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "name of the project",
      "required": true
   "description": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "description of the project"
   "avatar": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "URL to the image representing the project avatar"
   "owner": {
      "type": "string",
      "description": "unique id of the projects' owner",
      "required": true
   "members": {
      "type": "array",
      "description": "array of unique ids of project members",
      "items": {
         "type": "string"

Users are provided by another service and have the following model, defined the same way:

"User": {
   "id": "User",
   "description": "A single user model",
   "properties": {
      "id": {
         "type": "string",
         "description": "unique user id",
         "required": true
      "name": {
      "type": "string",
         "description": "user name",
         "required": true
      "email": {
         "type": "string",
         "description": "user email",
         "required": true
      "picture": {
         "type": "string",
         "description": "thumbnail picture of the user"

The key to the proposed solution lies in Swagger’s feature that allows the composite API document to be composed of APIs coming from multiple places. The entry point to the document definition will look like this:

            "path": "http://localhost:3000/api-docs/projects.json",
            "path": "http://localhost:3001/api-docs/users.json",
        "title":"30% Turtleneck, 70% Hoodie API Example",
        "description":"This API doc demonstrates how API definitions can be aggregated in a micro-service system, as demonstrated at <a href=\"\"></a>."

Each API group with its set of endpoints can be sources from a different URL, allowing us the flexible solution to provide this resource by the actual micro-service that owns that API portion.

Each individual API document will list the endpoints and resources it handles. For each endpoint and verb combination, it will list parameters, request/response bodies, as well as data models and error responses. This and much more is fully documented in Swagger 1.2 specification.

  "path": "/users/{id}",
  "operations": [
      "method": "GET",
      "summary": "Returns a user profile",
      "notes": "Implementation notes on GET.",
      "type": "User",
      "nickname": "getUser",
      "authorizations": {},
      "parameters": [
          "name": "id",
          "description": "Unique user identifier",
          "paramType": "path",
          "type": "string"
      "responseMessages": [
          "code": 404,
          "message": "User with a provided id not found"

Swagger handles most of its specification through the parameter list, which is fairly clever. In addition to query parameters, they can be used to define path segments, as well as request body for POST, PUT and PATCH. In addition, request and response body schemas are linked to the model specifications further down the document.

Needless to say, I skipped over huge swaths of the specification dealing with authentication. Suffice to say that Swagger specification currently supports basic Auth, API key and OAuth 2 as authentication options.

At this point of the article, I realized that I cannot show you the actual JSON files without making the article long and unwieldy. Luckily, I also realized I actually work for IBM and more importantly, IBM DevOps Services (JazzHub). So here is what I have done:

The entire Node.js app is now available as a public project on DevOps Services site:


Once you explored the code, you can see it running in IBM Bluemix. You can drill into the Swagger API UI (despite what the UI is telling you, you cannot yet ‘Try it’ – the actual API is missing, this is just a doc; for a real API, this part will also work).


I hope you agree that showing a running app is better than a screenshot. From now on, I will make it my standard practice to host complete demo apps in DevOps Services and run them in Bluemix for your clicking pleasure.

© Dejan Glozic, 2014