W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2006

RE: 202 in current implementation

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 18:40:58 +0200 (MEST)
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0603311832050.20910@gnenaghyn.vaevn.se>

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006, Glen Daniels wrote:

>
> A data point:
>
>> As you mentionned that you know implementations using 202, do
>> you know
>> what is their behaviour when there is an unmet mustUnderstand?
>> (sending back the mU fault instead of a 202, or is it
>> completely hidden)
>
> Apache Axis (and I believe Axis2 as well) sends a MU fault instead of
> the 202.

Thanks Glen!
This behaviour is more in sync with the ROR spirit, than just sending back 
a 202, so if we decide to settle on the use of 202 (and I think that it's 
where we are heading to), I propose to add this clarification on the mU 
fault:
"If a mU fault has to be sent as part of the initial processing of the 
request, it should be sent back to the originator instead of using a HTTP 
202 return code."

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Friday, 31 March 2006 16:41:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:21 GMT