faults in deleteNode
m.b.taylor at bristol.ac.uk
Thu Sep 15 01:43:28 PDT 2011
I'm not much involved with VOSpace, but I agree with Pat that 5xx codes
do not sound appropriate here.
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Patrick Dowler wrote:
> If a client tries to delete a node and one of the parent containers along the
> path does not exist, section 184.108.40.206 says it should respond with a fault:
> 500 ContainerNotFound
> Is there any reason this is not a "404 ContainerNotFound"? The delete method
> can also respond with a "404 NodeNotFound" if the target node itself does not
> exist, but that should be fine (in general there are multiple errors that
> semantically map to the same error code and the fault name in the body helps
> the client figure out what happened).
> Along the same lines, it seems the required "500 LinkFound" would be better
> served with a "400 LinkFound" (bad request).
> More generally, the main issue I am trying to resolve is that our ops staff
> monitor http logs for 5xx errors in order to detect server-side failures. I
> don't think it is correct or intended to have normal "user-inspired" errors
> use 5xx error codes. Depending on how we resolve this one, I will provide a
> list of other cases which I think should be 4xx instead of 5xx... or I can
> make the list first so we know the full impact.
> PS-editorial: the "404 NodeNotFound" fault is listed twice in the bullet list
> in this section (3rd and last).
> Patrick Dowler
> Tel/Tél: (250) 363-0044
> Canadian Astronomy Data Centre
> National Research Council Canada
> 5071 West Saanich Road
> Victoria, BC V9E 2M7
> Centre canadien de donnees astronomiques
> Conseil national de recherches Canada
> 5071, chemin West Saanich
> Victoria (C.-B.) V9E 2M7
Mark Taylor Astronomical Programmer Physics, Bristol University, UK
m.b.taylor at bris.ac.uk +44-117-928-8776 http://www.star.bris.ac.uk/~mbt/
More information about the vospace