W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:34:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwi9QM4eaYBePCDxhOoLw+W2jrabhFAFHWq6FhwF=acVLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> > On 2013-01-24 04:18, Grahame Grieve wrote:
> >> What would be right http status code to use? It's a client error, right?
> >> The nearest appropriate status code would be 422, but I'm not sure
> >> whether that can be used outside webdav. Either way, there's a bunch
> >
> > It can.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Augmenting error handling for web services is an interesting topic. See
> > prior proposals about Link relations, or a JSON typed response body
> format
> > for 4xx/5xx.
>
> I've seen APIs that handle errors in JSON-encoded response bodies,
> including one that always returns success in HTTP but errors in the
> response body, which is kinda weird, but if none of the HTTP status
> codes make sense...  (that was the author's defense).
>

It makes perfect sense from a layering perspective.

In an RPC call I probably want HTTP errors to be strictly limited to
reporting network failures. 'entry not found' is a completely different
result from 'machine is down'

entry not found is arguably a successful transaction that returned an empty
list of results.



-- 
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 20:34:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 20:34:49 GMT