Hi Andrew, We agree that 200 is not the most appropriate HTTP status code for these responses, but it does appear it is the response that we need to return in order for developers to be able to easily reach the Geocoder Response code contained in the body.
As the Geocoder response code is a lot more informative than the HTTP status code we felt that it was more important that developers could easily reach that, which is why we are switching back to 200, despite the reservations we share about it's appropriateness as the HTTP status code in these cases. Many thanks, Thor. On Feb 2, 8:48 am, Andrew Leach <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 1, 3:26 am, "Thor (Google Employee)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > This change will roll out over the course of the next 24 to 48 hours. > > Has Issue 1933 actually been considered? That is, has status 409 been > considered as a possible response or tested with "some client > libraries"? Or are you simply reverting the change and will consider > Issue 1933 in due course? > > Synopsis: 200 is a "success" code, which may be acceptable as > indicating the server has received a valid request and is returning a > response; 409 ("Conflict") was suggested as a result code which > indicated a "Yes but" result -- "We could do this but you need to do > something first", that is, wait a little. It was suggested as an > alternative to "403 Forbidden" which indicates that the request should > not be repeated: 409 indicates that it can be resubmitted. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Maps API" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-maps-api?hl=en.
