- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:28:28 +0100
- To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, Bill Roberts <bill@swirrl.com>
- Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
> Seriously, I think that > 413 Request Entity Too Large > > would be a good solution: I disagree. Just checked back w/ colleagues on the #rest IRC channel, they also agree with 503. Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:10, Martin Hepp wrote: >> >> Looking for some advice from the community. If we time out a slow- >> running SPARQL query, what is the most appropriate HTTP status code >> to return to the client? We had been trying 408, but the problem >> with that is that some clients (notably Firefox) take it on >> themselves to keep retrying the request, which isn't really what we >> want. >> >> Should we be returning 500 instead? > > What about > 402 Payment Required? > > ;-) > > Seriously, I think that > 413 Request Entity Too Large > > would be a good solution: > > "The server is refusing to process a request because the request > entity is larger than the server is willing or able to process. The > server MAY close the connection to prevent the client from > continuing the request. > > If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD include a Retry- > After header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what > time the client MAY try again." > > 500 Internal Server Error was also my first guess, but this may not > stop clients from trying again. > > Martin > > On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Bill Roberts wrote: > >> Looking for some advice from the community. If we time out a slow- >> running SPARQL query, what is the most appropriate HTTP status code >> to return to the client? We had been trying 408, but the problem >> with that is that some clients (notably Firefox) take it on >> themselves to keep retrying the request, which isn't really what we >> want. >> >> Should we be returning 500 instead? >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 28 June 2011 10:29:07 UTC