W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: 409 Conflict - exposing more details

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 19:40:50 +0100
Message-ID: <4D597732.2010503@gmx.de>
To: Jan Algermissen <algermissen1971@mac.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14.02.2011 19:34, Jan Algermissen wrote:
> Julian.
>
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in a project I'm currently working on, my server returns 409 Conflict when trying to DELETE a resource that still has strong references from other resources -- so what I want to tell the client is that you can't DELETE resource A as long as resource B references it.
>>
>> Now, with close coupling between client and server this can easily be communicated in the response body, be it JSON or XML.
>>
>> However, I was wondering whether this use case is common enough to standardize it? Maybe with a link relation?
>
> Not sure. I think I would try to model the aggregate in a way that the parts (that cannot exist without the whole) have URIs that are below the aggregate's URI. That way, they are automatically 'removed'. Part-whole relations being synonymous for your 'strong reference'.
>
> So it is maybe more a design problem than a technical one?
>
> Jan

For many relations this works and of course is preferable.

In the case I'm currently looking there's a mix of references I can 
expose as URI hierarchy (and I do), and some others that do not seem to fit.

I may be able to workaround this by defining multiple hierarchies (like 
in WebDAV bindings), but this seems to be a rather complex solution to 
what should be a simple problem...


Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 18:41:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:37 GMT