On Thursday 27 August 2009, Josef Reidinger wrote: > On 08/27/2009 04:14 PM, Cornelius Schumacher wrote: > > On Thursday 27 August 2009, Josef Reidinger wrote: > >> For our purpose I think that the best sollution is to > >> use our own error code which is not used, ( i that one which begin 4** > >> is good) and in body specify type of error, needed data for generate > >> report (like which permission mission and for which user) and english > >> error description. This error description should not use frontend, as it > >> must match type and print localized error description. > > > > I would suggest to not go with an own error code, but use the existing > > ones. This makes it easier for generic HTTP clients. A 400 fits for most > > normal errors, and details can be given in the body of the response. > > Hi, thanks for comment. I study error code and looks like 400 is not > sufficient as it is Bad Request and mean that client should not repeat > request without modification, so it could case in some case (like locked > package management) problems on proxies and caches as it could filter > same request. But I find that 409 Conflict looks like sufficient as it > expect details in body and proxy should repeat request without problems.
409 is usually used when writing to a resource which has changed inbetween, so this doesn't fit to the locked package management case. As it's a problem on the server, a 500 would be more appropriate in this case, maybe a 503. -- Cornelius Schumacher <[email protected]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
