Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

3848Re: [rest-discuss] 403 vs. 409

Expand Messages
  • Mark Baker
    Aug 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:50:30AM -0400, Walden Mathews wrote:
      > > Agreed. If the state was transferred such that it was "processed", then
      > > it's a success. One can, I believe, quite reasonably define "processed"
      > > to include determining whether an XML document was well-formed or not
      > > ... if that meets your needs.
      > Sure, in that case your resource is just an XML parser, not an
      > application that consumes well-formed and perhaps valid XML.

      Even in the latter case, I'd say it's just fine. If your application
      only consumes well formed XML on POST, then you *may* want to use 400,
      but 200 would be valid as well.

      > > No, you got it, that's what I meant. "Back" from the "400 page", so to
      > > speak.
      > Okay, then the application still has the same means for proceeding
      > through the application that it did before the error. Should be no
      > problem in terms of state machine.

      Except that the 400 response is supposed to describe the error, so it
      should be a dead-end from the POV of progressing the application.

      There's probably a more accurate way to describe that in terms of
      application state, but I can't come up with it right now.

      > > Dunno, you'll have to ask the editors.
      > Okay. Editors?

      FWIW, 2xx is also like this, as 202 doesn't mean "processed". Henrik
      told me this was a legacy issue that wasn't felt to warrant changing
      the first-character rule.

      Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
    • Show all 26 messages in this topic