W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2009

AW: Use of Status Code 500

From: Svensson, Lars <l.svensson@d-nb.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 16:02:47 +0200
Message-ID: <6DA97EFF2763174B8BDC409CA197298409B6FC15@dbf-ex.AD.DDB.DE>
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: "Henrik Nordstrom" <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
In litteris suis de Mittwoch, 2. September 2009 11:02, Henrik Nordstrom
<mailto:henrik@henriknordstrom.net>scripsit:

> ons 2009-09-02 klockan 08:53 +0200 skrev Svensson, Lars:
>> At my place we're a bit unsure of the use of Status Code 500. One of
>> our apps (a distributed one) returns a SC 500 when there is a
>> communication errror with one of the subsystems.
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me. 500 is "unspecified server failure".

Thanks for your reply. It turned out to be a bit different than I first
said: It's not a communication error that causes the malfunction, but a
bug in the application that causes an exception to be thrown when data
from the subsystem is processed. Would you still agree that SC 500 is
reasonable, or (since we know about the exception and can catch it) that
an error page serving SC 200 and the error message would be more
appropriate?

> 500 is "unspecified server failure".

If 500 is "unspecified", is there any way I can specify the error? I
haven't really found anything in the spec...

Finally: Do you (or anyone else on this list) know if there are any best
practices for those cases and -- if so -- where those are documented?

Thanks in advance,

Lars
-- 
Dr. Lars G. Svensson
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
Informationstechnik
Adickesallee 1
60322 Frankfurt
http://www.d-nb.de/
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 14:03:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:10 GMT