Paw Rest Client For Mac

1. Paw Mac App

1. Any devs use/using this? Looks pretty nice for testing REST commands easily. Just an FYI to share.
2. We bought this app and I can safely say this is the best REST client I have ever seen or used. The others out there (mostly the extensions for Chrome and Firefox) will do for most people but this app is just gorgeous and offers some nice features on top.

I was on the verge of buying a licence for Paw a couple of months ago, but discovered Insomnia, and been using that instead. (Formerly used Postman before that).

Paw Mac App

To me, the functionality of Paw and Insomnia seem very similar, so the $50 licence price deterred me from purchasing Paw. If Paw was closer to the $20 mark, I might have still bought it to have in my arsenal of tools 'just in case'. My rationale is that if there was nothing else on the market with any equivalent functionality, then $50 for Paw is a no brainer. But when there are other competitive product with equal (or greater) feature sets for free, then the pricing works against it. For one, I don't like that it is in the browser. I don't like the buttons on the left that are icons with no text or tooltip, I have no idea what they do. I don't like that I have to type the request verb (GET, POST, etc).

The tool should help me with suggestions as they are finite. It is a shame I have to also type in the HTTP/1.1 section, again suggestions would work better. Can I create multiple requests and switch between them quickly? I usually switch through a few. There is no feedback when I press the play button, I have no idea if that is what makes requests, there is no tooltip. Also, you say that you have all of paw's features. How do I do dynamic values in the url?

Explore 15 Mac apps like Paw, all suggested and ranked by the. A powerful REST API Client with cookie management, environment variables, code.

How do I make and manage oAuth requests? Update: I can't make any requests it seems. That would seem an important feature. We will capture this feedback so that we can get back to it. It is very helpful. In terms of the verb and the version, you can either select them from the dropdown, type or use dynamic values.

The URL and all other input fields, certainly support dynamic values, which can be selected from the dropdown or autocompleted by typing the value text. We have wider support for transforms which can be nested like Paw and we do have variables, which can also be nested. You can build very complex dynamic expressions.

These two features alone superset Paw on the same feature set. We don't have builtin OAuth support but we are working on it. We don't have collections but you can save in projects (so files and folders). The tool works in the browser by leveraging a minimal browser extension.

There is currently work in progress to build it on top of Electron as a desktop app but it can be done in WebKit as well on Mac. We have not decided yet. I genuinely believe this tool will improve your workflow once we add OAuth support and collections hence why I mentioned it here. And we do have a favourable licensing model which allows you to use the tool free of charge. This tool also works really well with all our other tools which allow you to fuzz, run security scans, and perform request inspection inside your browser without the need to install a proxy. You can even monitor iPhone HTTP traffic without too much fiddling and all of these features will be part of the desktop app.

You are not:) We just suck at explaining our tech very well and it takes a while to realise the value here because even I have not seen any other product offering packaged in the way we do it today - so it could be confusing initially. This is why I am starting threads like this. The browser extension depends on the browser technology as the extension ecosystem is different for each vendor. Currently, we support Chrome and Firefox but due to Web Extensions API adoption, we will be supporting out of the box all 3 major browsers: Chrome, Firefox and IE Edge (no Safari I am afraid). That being said, the packaged app will provide a standalone version as well which means that there is an easy transition between desktop and web users and all major platforms will be supported.

This is the plan at least. This is a good question. Of course, we are working on it and we are also building a very complex product at the same time.

So while the main site is nowhere near what we want it to be it does not mean that we cannot publicly share what we are currently doing. And yes it would have been a lot more useful if I had shown you an amazing landing page but unfortunately it is not ready yet. I hope that some of you may see a potential and although may disagree with the styles and color schemes keep faith in us and come back to check it out later when we have landed the themes, the desktop version and the new extension. It is still useful application and all discussed changes are in the pipeline.

As a self-confessed Paw fanboy, I'm kinda baffled by this. It seems a bit like complaining that you're forced to work with spreadsheets in Excel or text documents in Word. You need somewhere to put the requests, and even if you don't want to have one Paw project per, err. Project, you can just create one and then use it for everything and it'll even re-open it automatically every time you open the app.

And, if it helps, you can rename a request in Paw by clicking on its name in the sidebar while you have the request selected or clicking on the name where it shows up as a title in the Description panel in the middle of the screen. Just checked out Insomnia.

From a first run through with a few endpoints it does seem beautifully done. I have been dismissive of electron-based apps in the past. VS.Code started to wear that down - I never took to using it because IntelliJ & emacs cover my bases, but I played with it enough to see its excellence. Now there's Insomnia. Perhaps I need to rethink my attitude to electron apps. I am uncomfortable with their size (eg.

Insomnia @ 170MB), but given the quality that's clearly possible, I'm starting to distrust that discomfort. There are so many differences it's impossible to list them.

In general, Postman focuses on having every feature under the sun (integration testing, mock APIs, etc) whereas Insomnia focuses on the core of just being an HTTP client with additional helpers to be more productive. The result being that Insomnia is not suitable for as many use cases but is has a better user experience because it's more focused. Insomnia is also open source software. You should really try them both to figure out which one best suites you. I'm the developer of Insomnia.

I just switched to Insomnia because of a bug in Postman, where it wouldn't pick up changes in the body of an HTTP POST and would use something that had been sent previously. I was able to see that the data received by the server was previous values from the text field. If I cloned the request into a new tab it started working.

It happened repeatedly - at some point after making edits to the body it would just get stuck and not send what was in the editor. So I switched because I can't use an app with such issues with its core functionality. I also disliked Postman's UI, but it wasn't a deal broker. I'm not in love with Insomnia's UI, either, but I like Insomnia because it reliably sends the right request. For quick-and-dirty things I use cURL or httpie otherwise I use Paw (and have for about a year now). I had previously used Postman before that, but even then Paw was a better app—native app so it looked better + felt faster, nicer collections, better default shortcuts, etc. Paw has a lot of power behind it, otherwise if you're just doing basic POST requests, stick to httpie.

The code generators and extensions are nice. Easily switching between environments (e.g. Dev, staging, prod).

History of run requests. Tying values from other requests into other requests—e.g. Get an auth token from a login request, and use that in a header in all other requests. I still only use a fairly basic amount of the features too. It's a very polished app, and the devs seem good too. The people that seek out Mac-only software may have dwindled, but from the mid-90's through the 2000's there was a lot of pride in how Mac software looked and felt way better than other OSes. When you have cross-platform software, even with a large dev team, there has to be huge compromises.

For example, do menus go at the top (macOS) or do you have menus on each window (Windows)? Does Quit go under 'File' (Windows) or under the app name's menu (macOS)?

If you look at the Google apps on the iPhone, they originally looked like native iPhone apps, but since then Google apps look and work the same between OSes. This makes sense for a branding and development perspective. The few users who switch platforms for whatever reason are pleased, but for people who just use a Mac don't care about other platforms and want all their Mac software to look and work the same. Some people use Safari just because it's a native Mac app.

Many people used Camino for that reason, too (Camino was a native Mac browser using Mozilla's Gecko engine developed between 2002-2012, first released a year before Safari). As an extreme example, personally, I avoid almost all Java apps.

Yes, they're cross platform, but they're ugly, slow, and usually integrate poorly with the rest of my system. JetBrains apps are the only exception that come to mind.

Well everything was defined as String even when it was expecting an Int or Bool value. But sometimes an Int still needed to be wrapped in double quotes to work. No date formats.

Objects returned of type class A sometimes had only 30% of it's fields populated (like after an insert only the database ID and creation date). Fields expecting an enum like value but the expected values not specified. I mean it makes sense if you just export some kind of Postman / Paw configuration without paying any attention to it. File Export Bye Bye. Of course most of my complaints are related to a lazy programmer sending 'documentation' with the absolute least amount of effort possible, but I now at least understand how it was made and why it was as awful as it was. Indeed, it sounds like there was a bit of a problem 'between keyboard and chair' when it came to the Postman / Paw user with whom you interacted. I had good success, just recently, using Paw to knock out the broad strokes an OpenAPI description, including indications of integer, string, boolean, date, etc.

After I got the hang of thinking in terms of OpenAPI, I converted the JSON to YAML and started fine-tuning and DRY'ing the description in Emacs. I would still use Paw as an exploratory tool — it's not perfect, but I find it more convenient than maintaining a collection of scripts and snippets to experiment with API input/output.

Next time I need to write an OpenAPI description, though, if I can't auto-generate it from the server code (that was the case recently), I'll just author it by hand. It's not too big of a chore when done in YAML format, with the help of 'feedback loops' per ReDoc1 and Swagger Editor2. This will obviously make some people think of Postman so I wanted to give my take. I, along with my team, currently use Postman (without team sync). I'd love to switch to Paw but I think we are close to getting the company to pay for team sync and I'd hate to pay $50 then have to constantly be exporting/importing into PostmanPaw. I'd jump on Paw for the whole team as the $10/mo for the entire team for syncing is very attractive vs Postman Pro $8/user/mo (hell, I'd pay it myself) but I am the only macOS user (the rest on linux) and while we can debate the value of electron apps all day long they do serve a purpose.

I learned about Paw and decided to try it. My API is based on Swagger (2.0) and Postman is not a very good friend of it. Paw seems to be clean and while UX is kinda sorta sometimes clunky, I see how it could be better than Postman. But, seriously folks, the app crashed twice within half an hour. I just tried to create different environments (I run next dev version locally and also want to run against current published version). Once it failed when I created the environment and once it failed when I added a variable and tried to undo the edit.

Very trivial actions and it seems that the app just doesn't receive testing. I'd expect something similar from an OSS app (I'm the tester then and I'm expected to fill bugs). And I'd probably go ahead and fix it or at least try to debug and find the root cause. But for $50 I expect a product.

I want to swipe the credit card and move on with my project. I had a trial and found the selection for developers wasn't worth the $10. There are a few little utilities, like the Regex tester, that are definitely neat and well made, but given the once a month I actually need that functionality, I'll just use a crappy web app for it. Most of the software I found to be the 3rd best in its category (or worse), for example, It doesn't have OmniFocus or Things, it has a bunch of to-do list apps I've never heard of that all have poor design and UX.

Besides that there's a lot of the soft of system enhancer software that I thought made my computer go faster when I was younger but that I've now realised is mostly pointless. For me to resubscribe to SetApp, I'd want to see best-in-class apps like Things, OmniFocus, SublimeText (or even BBEdit, I'm not a fan, but it's a good Mac app), RapidWeaver (again, not for me, but good for many), Transmit, Coda, Delicious Library, etc. I'd probably pay more than $10 for that sort of selection.

You can use the app for less than hour and it will pay for itself considering the hourly rate of an average programmer. A useful professional tool that will make development flow easier and save you time and fifty bucks is expensive? $19 is peanuts. I use Paw quite often and every time I use it I discover some new little detail that the developers put in.

It's not a basic app, it's well-designed and it's useful. $19 - seriously that's less than what many people spend on coffee in a week.

$50 is not at all expensive for a tool that used in a professional setting on a regular basis.

App Store: More Info: The ultimate REST client for Mac. Paw is a full-featured and beautifully designed Mac app that makes interaction with REST services delightful.

Either you are an API maker or consumer, Paw helps you build HTTP requests, inspect the server's response and even generate client code. Easily build your HTTP requests, send and inspect server responses. Setup HTTP headers, URL parameters, JSON, form URL-encoded, or multipart body.

Organize your requests in collection files, and generate client code.