- From: Andreas Tolfsen <ato@mozilla.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:56:04 +0100
- To: Simon Stewart <simon.m.stewart@gmail.com>
- Cc: David Burns <dburns@mozilla.com>, public-browser-tools-testing <public-browser-tools-testing@w3.org>
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Simon Stewart <simon.m.stewart@gmail.com> wrote: > From the end user's point of view, what's the difference? And how is this > different from a normal HTTP request where a proxy chokes? As far as each > step on the path from local to remote end goes, the "next hop" _is_ the > remote end, so it'd be hard for an intermediary to know whether or not the > problem was caused by the remote end failing to respond or another node? > > Would a 502 or 504 HTTP response be appropriate? An intermediary might perform other actions than just act as a proxy, or the proxy itself may have bugs. It's sometimes useful to catch errors and propagate them on to the local end in a structured way. An HTTP status code will communicate the type of error that occurred, but sometimes it might be useful to convey more information: Exception messages, stacktraces, &c. WebDriver's response object [1] is good for this purpose but none of the existing status codes [2] makes sense when non-fatal errors occur. But including a mandate on a special HTTP status code makes a lot of sense too. 1. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webdriver/raw-file/tip/webdriver-spec.html#response 2. https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webdriver/raw-file/tip/webdriver-spec.html#status-codes
Received on Friday, 26 September 2014 20:56:32 UTC