W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Status indicating intermediary server problems

From: David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:18:44 +0100
Message-ID: <542575C4.2080607@mozilla.com>
To: Andreas Tolfsen <ato@mozilla.com>, public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org
Just for clarification, this error would not come from the UA part of 
the Remote End but from the HTTP Endpoint if something goes wrong.

David

On 24/09/2014 18:39, Andreas Tolfsen wrote:
> There is currently no way to determine where a command fails if you
> have one or more intermediary servers sitting in between the local and
> remote ends.
>
> If for example you use a proxy like a Selenium remote server between
> your client and your driver, there's no way to find out whether an
> unsuccessful response/error was caused by the driver or the proxy.
>
> I'm currently in a situation where I have multiple proxies sitting
> between the local and final remote end where if one of the proxies
> have an internal problem or the next remote fails to reply, it would
> be useful for it to return a response indicating the problem is caused
> by the intermediary rather than the driver.
>
> For this reason I'm proposing to introduce a new status called “proxy
> error” or “intermediate error”.
>
> This error would not be possible to use for the driver
> implementations, but could be used by intermediary remotes, such as
> proxies, to say that an error occurred in their domain, and that the
> command never made it all the way to the driver.
>
Received on Friday, 26 September 2014 14:19:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 12 February 2015 15:39:03 UTC