I would prefer relying on Status Code instead of `code` (actually it's a manual logical and extendable code).
Why not list all API cases then have a choice? Best Regards! @ Zhiyuan Ju <https://github.com/juzhiyuan> Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> 于2021年7月22日周四 下午12:36写道： > please give an example about i18n for a better understanding > > Thanks, > Ming Wen, Apache APISIX PMC Chair > Twitter: _WenMing > > > JunXu Chen <chenju...@apache.org> 于2021年7月22日周四 上午11:36写道： > > > Agree +1 > > > > > > I think we still need to keep the `code` field. > > > > The FE needs to implement i18n according to it. > > > > Unless `message` is semantic and can be used as a key of i18n. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 at 00:02, Ming Wen <wenm...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I don't think the `code` filed is useful, HTTP response code is enough. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ming Wen, Apache APISIX PMC Chair > > > Twitter: _WenMing > > > > > > > > > Peter Zhu <sta...@apache.org> 于2021年7月21日周三 下午11:18写道： > > > > > > > Agree +1. > > > > And I think we should maintain the `code` filed and maintain the doc > of > > > > API. > > > > > > > > > >
