Reed, Just imagine if all those engine APIs start deviating from SOAP spec, think of the custom code that all the clients (stand alone or frameworks) have to write on their side and maintain it. I think the whole point having w3c spec is that we don't have to worry about such small things. Sending back http status 500 for soap fault is something that big search ad marketing api (google, yahoo, msn) has been doing, in fact it even works fine in google v13. We are really hoping that this will be fixed in v2009 soon since they acknowledged that it is incorrect.
my 2 cents!! On Feb 2, 9:55 am, Reed <r...@powellgenealogy.com> wrote: > I've been following this thread with curiosity. Given the variety of > ways that the various search engine marketing APIs (so I'm not just > picking on Google here) use to signal an error (500, refused > connections, ignored connections, as well as the ever popular method > of just sending back some formatted HTML and CSS that says "we too > D**N busy now try again in 15 minutes"), why would you presume that > 200 always means OK? Just treat 200 as "potentially" OK and then > check to see if it has an error/fault structure in it. If it doesn't > then you're probably good to go. If it does, well now you know what > the error is and can do something about it. I gave up trusting the > exact HTTP responses from these APIs a long time ago - try to imagine > the amount of code behind them on the engine side of things. There's > always going to be something buggy or just plain "strange" no matter > how hard they try to make them perfect. > > my 2 cents! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AdWords API Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to adwords-...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adwords-api+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/adwords-api?hl=en.
