- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:30:00 +0100
- To: Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>
- CC: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2013-01-24 04:18, Grahame Grieve wrote: > Hi Tim > >> I disagree strenuously. The semantics of HTTP as they are today map well >> onto my RESTful-app-construction needs. > > well, here's an issue I have. What error code should an http server return if > a proposed update is not suitable because of the content of the submission? > There's nothing wrong at the http layer - it passes authenticaion, currency > and content type checks, and parses, ok. But there's something in the content > that violates server business rules. Something like trying to submit and > order with an identifier that has already been used, for example. > > 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. > of things I would expect in an application exchange protocol that don't > map that well. > > I don't think that a different protocol is a good idea, but the discussion of > what's planned for HTTP/2 seems very focused on browsers & the web to > me, and doesn't seem to me to adequately consider the huge use that > exists for application/application communications 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. All of this can be done in HTTP/1.1 and doesn't require any protocol changes. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 15:30:35 UTC