Hi Am 22.01.2014 um 13:12 schrieb Dominik Süß <dominik.su...@gmail.com>:
> I just checked the RFC for statuscodes and 403 seems appropriate while 409 > seems to be wrong. > Although you could argue the user can resolve the conflict by changing the > URI the new URI has a new target (since the URI does not know about > concepts like selectors or suffixes) and therefore is a different request > (the versioning example indicates that the intention is a conflict created > by the payload). Yes, that was my idea for 409. But I am fine with 403, too. Regards Felix > IMHO 403 would be good and could return an info what > exactly was wrong with the request (like "Found suffix [extension | > selectors] for POST request"). > > Regards, > Dominik > > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:34 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz < > bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com> >> wrote: >>> ...I am not sure about the 404 response. How about 409/CONFLICT or >> 403/FORBIDDEN ? >> >> 403/FORBIDDEN sounds good, will do that. >> >>> >>> Finally: Lets consider not allowing selector, extension, and suffix on >> all requests handled by the SlingPostServlet ? >> >> That's a different topic. >> -Bertrand >>
