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 20:55 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 0069D21F8801 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:55:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.667, 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 1wRiWDaIq82W for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C40D21F8540 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 12:55:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyTox-0003L6-Bf for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:54:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:54:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyTox-0003L6-Bf@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 1TyTos-0003KB-FC for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:54:46 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.20]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1TyToo-0006Yf-MR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:54:46 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.12]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lhyiy-1UlIwk1b4k-00n9mO for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:54:16 +0100
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2013 20:54:15 -0000
Received: from p5DD95BCE.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.2.117]) [93.217.91.206] by mail.gmx.net (mp012) with SMTP; 24 Jan 2013 21:54:15 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19gCxsVAktge3W81pv4KSai1Q6sG5y5hPd3tI9aaB q02yw0Mk/xIi65
Message-ID: <51019F73.5060101@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 21:54:11 +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: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
CC: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Grahame Grieve <grahame@healthintersections.com.au>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.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> <CAMm+Lwi9QM4eaYBePCDxhOoLw+W2jrabhFAFHWq6FhwF=acVLQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwi9QM4eaYBePCDxhOoLw+W2jrabhFAFHWq6FhwF=acVLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.20; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.841, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyToo-0006Yf-MR af50aeef5bc40f1e7915c8da249969b2
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/51019F73.5060101@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16176
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 21:34, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com
> <mailto:nico@cryptonector.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Julian Reschke
>     <julian.reschke@gmx.de <mailto: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).
>
>
> It makes perfect sense from a layering perspective.
>
> In an RPC call I probably want HTTP errors to be strictly limited to
> reporting network failures. 'entry not found' is a completely different
> result from 'machine is down'
>
> entry not found is arguably a successful transaction that returned an
> empty list of results.

In that case you are (ab)using HTTP as transport protocol.

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email