Response code when POSTing existing resource - API Craft

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion Response code when POSTing existing resource
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 209.85.214.175 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of m...@amundsen.com) client-ip=209.85.214.175;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51D30573C07F2D41A6DE9D263913295328426...@CH1PRD0310MB380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <551691cb-5469-458c-9c77-82e6c7573...@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
	<23002568.219.1332770712450.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vblo18>
	<b207f290-a558-4a3b-bcc3-fb943ef9b...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
	<B6AE84A0-9B92-4723-A483-A921E941E...@gmail.com>
	<29235383.1503.1335437190987.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbq5>
	<CANqiZJbNC8LGwXfjCxBSJ4FUNEjzCRr5WxDkPwaSCd8+8eu...@mail.gmail.com>
	<51D30573C07F2D41A6DE9D263913295328426...@CH1PRD0310MB380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAPW_8m6av7wzvURy1ssRWxBms_QdYsg59dYMU9rDm8GtpOx...@mail.gmail.com>
	<51D30573C07F2D41A6DE9D263913295328426...@CH1PRD0310MB380.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:34:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAPW_8m4WoJ3UzAJjdAVtHmEgcf+BaxLRPJ5=t4+7snDTa0q...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Response code when POSTing existing resource
From: mca <m...@amundsen.com>
To: api-craft@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<snip>
Agreed. Which is the only reason I even send an email which otherwise
decries the woeful state of the universe, complains that someone on
the internet is wrong, and offers to do nothing to fix it. =A0:)
</snip>
LOL! we're cool.

mca
http://amundsen.com/blog/
http://twitter.com@mamund
http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me



On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 13:26, Arlo Belshee <Arlo.Bels...@microsoft.com> wr=
ote:
> <snip>
> The members of this list are in the position to affect the trajectory of =
client coding.
> </snip>
>
> Agreed. Which is the only reason I even send an email which otherwise dec=
ries the woeful state of the universe, complains that someone on the intern=
et is wrong, and offers to do nothing to fix it. =A0:)
>
> Of course, I can (and do when possible) use 202 correctly in my own APIs =
and clients.
>
> Arlo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: api-craft@googlegroups.com [mailto:api-craft@googlegroups.com] On B=
ehalf Of mca
> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:21 AM
> To: api-craft@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Response code when POSTing existing resource
>
> <snip>
> The fact that lots of client developers think "2xx =3D=3D OK" makes it di=
fficult to write servers that really do async processing. 202 is great if y=
ou own the clients. If you're handling generic clients, the "install base" =
of client developer thinking is too entrenched to really let you use it.
> </snip>
> The members of this list are in the position to affect the trajectory of =
client coding. Writing even "small|limited" clients that support the behavi=
or you want can make a difference and can spread the knowledge to other pla=
ces.
>
> Be the change you want to see in the world - Gandhi
>
> mca
> http://amundsen.com/blog/
> http://twitter.com@mamund
> http://mamund.com/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 13:12, Arlo Belshee <Arlo.Bels...@microsoft.com> =
wrote:
>> Well, "2xx means OK" includes one misconception. It ignores 202, which i=
ntentionally states that the error state is currently unknown.
>>
>> The fact that lots of client developers think "2xx =3D=3D OK" makes it d=
ifficult to write servers that really do async processing. 202 is great if =
you own the clients. If you're handling generic clients, the "install base"=
 of client developer thinking is too entrenched to really let you use it.
>>
>> Thus people end up lifting async (a processing concern) to the resource =
level. They create resources like "transaction" or "batch" so that they can=
 represent async without using the HTTP async primitives.
>>
>> Oh well - another case where HTTP usable in practice is only a subset of=
 HTTP in spec.
>>
>> Arlo
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: api-craft@googlegroups.com [mailto:api-craft@googlegroups.com]
>> On Behalf Of Mike Kelly
>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:34 AM
>> To: api-craft@googlegroups.com
>> Subject: Re: Response code when POSTing existing resource
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 11:46 AM, jrgns <jurgens.dut...@gmail.com> wrote=
:
>>> I've also experienced that coders generally accept that 2xx codes
>>> meant that everything went well, and will ignore any error messages
>>> sent with that.This might be a misconception that needs to be changed
>>> if a separation of concerns as described by Duncan, which I think is
>>> something to work towards, is to be achieved.
>>
>> That is not a misconception. Using a 200 for (b) would be wrong, it does=
n't make any sense to do that. Invalidly attempting to create a second tria=
l is an error on behalf of the client, client errors are what 4xx codes are=
 for.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
