- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:15:16 +0200
- To: "Svensson, Lars" <l.svensson@d-nb.de>
- CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Henrik Nordstrom <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
Svensson, Lars wrote: > 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? OMG, no. 500 is *exactly* what you want in that case. Status 200 would mean that automated applications get content and assume everything is fine. >> 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... You can send details in the response body (but I assume you already do that :-). > ... BR, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2009 14:16:04 UTC