+1, xhr status being returned in the error message.
On Apr 25, 11:22 am, Robert Evans <
bobev...@google.com> wrote:
> Agree
>
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Arne Roomann-Kurrik <
kur...@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I like the latter approach as well - might as well keep the data in a
> > format that developers are already familiar with.
>
> > ~Arne
>
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Louis Ryan <
lr...@google.com> wrote:
>
> >> Do we want to add cases for pretty common HTTP responses to
> >> ResponseItem.Error then?
>
> >> temporarily unavailable, host unreachable, ....
>
> >> or just return that status information from the XHR object which would
> >> include the HTTP response code in the error message and leave it at that. I
> >> would prefer the latter.
>
> >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 4:14 AM, Cassie <
d...@google.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Okay, so Louis, Lane, Arne and Bob are for this.
>
> >>> Louis - just a quick mention, couldn't a getError() method just reuse the
> >>> error codes currently defined on ResponseItem? Those are all http error
> >>> codes... so it seems to fit. (especially internal error or forbidden)
>
> >>> If those don't fit, just curious, what types of error messages will you
> >>> be returning?
> >>> Thanks.
>
> >>> - Cassie
>
> >>> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Robert Evans <
bobev...@google.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> +1
>
> >>>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Lane LiaBraaten <
lliab...@google.com>