"non-fatal" necessarily? Or any error in a node that knows it is an intermediary one? On Sep 26, 2014 1:56 PM, "Andreas Tolfsen" <ato@mozilla.com> wrote: > 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 Saturday, 27 September 2014 21:24:23 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:09:51 UTC