Hi > Am 12.11.2014 um 14:45 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz <bdelacre...@apache.org>: > > Hi Felix, > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Felix Meschberger <fmesc...@adobe.com> wrote: >> Consider this case: >> * Client browses non-existing /a/b/xyz.html >> * Not found, hence 404 >> * 404 handler fails due to some bad programming >> * client gets 500 > >> I don’t think that is ok... > > I understand your point but what would you consider ok then?
As I said: log the error handler failure but still send the original error to the client. To the client it is better to get a not-so-nice-but-correct response than to get a confusing response. > > The error handler failing is a somewhat catastrophic situation, which > IMO deserves a 500 status. Yes, but ... > > If we return 404 a monitoring system might not notice the problem. .. whom are you sending the error message to ? The monitoring system or the client browsing the server ? The client is not interested in seeing a failing system. The client is interested in a direct response to his/her actions. Hence 404 is the right reaction to the not-found-situation. The failing error handler is an internal implementation detail and must not be exposed to the client. But yes, I agree, we have to record the failure. This is done in the error log and the monitoring system is primarily looking at the error log not at the client response. Regards Felix > > -Bertrand
