IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 24 January 2013 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0732F21F8506 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:06:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VOhHzllKOHPQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:06:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E72B21F84DE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyS7a-00044H-1t for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:05:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:05:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyS7a-00044H-1t@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TyS7U-00043B-RM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:05:52 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.18]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TyS7U-0001Cf-9W for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:05:52 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.27]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0M5JXV-1UxB0L0k8t-00zUsp for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:05:26 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2013 19:05:25 -0000
Received: from p5DD95BCE.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [93.217.91.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2013 20:05:25 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18YbExPGMoY9F2+Z2zohxq367sARs70rr9vTK4M4m lGnXwtSnQWMAb+
Message-ID: <510185F2.2060204@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:05:22 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
CC: Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CAMm+LwgTSw05QLUspAbAyRSWfd8j27fhwPiDSF_TaD8LevftBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iu-bH_cEEVNq0CxcHZELjAFZ0Vb6d8cN5y_qbmu6xCKFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAG47hGa+Hp4LmepYOsCXM9p-L-XrP3a6o1S3RorEYiJK8SEmFA@mail.gmail.com> <51015378.5080106@gmx.de> <CAK3OfOgESpx+a2-767ejoksMgXsTjFgQpr4r9fvFjr3O1T33LA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOgESpx+a2-767ejoksMgXsTjFgQpr4r9fvFjr3O1T33LA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.18; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.910, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyS7U-0001Cf-9W f544a9fe811439ce12af6214cc789ff4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/510185F2.2060204@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16173
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2013-01-24 18:48, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 2013-01-24 04:18, Grahame Grieve wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> 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.
>
> I've seen APIs that handle errors in JSON-encoded response bodies,
> including one that always returns success in HTTP but errors in the
> response body, which is kinda weird, but if none of the HTTP status
> codes make sense...  (that was the author's defense).

Bad defense, because it still can be classified either as 400 or 500.

2xx is the wrong choice, and I'll not go into the why over here 
(hopefully everybody knows!)

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email