HttpResponseMessage vs IHttpActionResult

Posted on

In Web API 2 IHttpActionResult is introduced. Read this post which explains the Web API 2 response types and the benefits of IHttpActionResult

Assuming you’ve read the above article it is recommended to use IHttpActionResult.

Apart from the benefits of clean code and unit testing the main design argument of using IHttpActionResult is the single responsibility principle; stating that actions have the responsibility of serving the HTTP requests and should not involve in creating the HTTP response messages. This argument makes sense, but keeping this aside if we look at the implementation of IHttpActionResult it calls the ExecuteAsync method to create the HttpResponseMessage object.

But overall it is new, easy to perform unit testing and a recommended practice to use IHttpActionResult. I personally prefer IHttpActionResult due to clean code and the ability to write neat unit tests.

Still HttpResponseMessage provides more control over the HTTP response message sent across the wire, do we have that control in IHttpActionResult especially the HTTP response message creation is hidden from us.

Yes you can get the full control. Because in the above article it’s mentioned that ExecuteAsync method is called in the pipeline in constructing the HTTP response. So the solution is simple we should have a custom type which implements IHttpActionResult interface and provide the logic for for creating the HttpResponseMessage object.

This github repo has the code for a generic type which implements IHttpActionResult. Which you can use or extend; in the sample I have provided how to implement caching in the response header.

The main class is CacheableHttpActionResult<T>


One thought on “HttpResponseMessage vs IHttpActionResult

Comments are closed.