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 20:20:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4D598078.5080102@gmx.de>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 14.02.2011 20:02, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 8:02 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> A link relation makes sense.  What would you call it?
> required-by, dependency-of, bound-to, ...

"dependency-of" sounds good to me.

Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 19:21:02 GMT

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