Re: HTTP status for timed-out SPARQL query

> Seriously, I think that
>   413 Request Entity Too Large
>
> would be a good solution:


I disagree. Just checked back w/ colleagues on the #rest IRC channel,  
they also agree with 503.

Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:10, Martin Hepp wrote:

>>
>> Looking for some advice from the community.  If we time out a slow- 
>> running SPARQL query, what is the most appropriate HTTP status code  
>> to return to the client?  We had been trying 408, but the problem  
>> with that is that some clients (notably Firefox) take it on  
>> themselves to keep retrying the request, which isn't really what we  
>> want.
>>
>> Should we be returning 500 instead?
>
> What about
>   402 Payment Required?
>
> ;-)
>
> Seriously, I think that
>   413 Request Entity Too Large
>
> would be a good solution:
>
> "The server is refusing to process a request because the request  
> entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. The  
> server MAY close the connection to prevent the client from  
> continuing the request.
>
> If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD include a Retry-  
> After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what  
> time the client MAY try again."
>
> 500 Internal Server Error was also my first guess, but this may not  
> stop clients from trying again.
>
> Martin
>
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Bill Roberts wrote:
>
>> Looking for some advice from the community.  If we time out a slow- 
>> running SPARQL query, what is the most appropriate HTTP status code  
>> to return to the client?  We had been trying 408, but the problem  
>> with that is that some clients (notably Firefox) take it on  
>> themselves to keep retrying the request, which isn't really what we  
>> want.
>>
>> Should we be returning 500 instead?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 10:29:07 UTC