[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ERROR verb
Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 14:01:00 +0100, Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ERR is the verb.
Does the verb exists, or what do you mean?
Just that ERR is the verb form of ERROR.
Adding new method to HTTP (or any app protocol) is a last resort imo.
I agree, but as this verb doesn't require anything on the server, it's
not a big requirement. It's actually not requiring anyone to do
anything, other than the client to report errors with the ERR or ERROR
verb. This would be immencly simpler to implement in a client than
doing all sorts of audodiscovery to find error-URI's, posting special
error XML documents to that URI, etc.
I responded to Henry about this - using exceptions for control flow
is a questionable technique. I don't think it's RESTful - it's
relying on assumptions about (invisible) behaviour and the nature of
implementations, such as log file analysis, or even that servers
have log files.
Well, probably. But adding the ERROR verb isn't a huge requirement, and
just proves that Atom is capable of doing more than the HTTP creators
originally foresaw.
Adding any new verb is a huge requirement. And that Atom is capable
of doing more has yet to be demonstrated (to me ;).
* all aside from adoption questions, which are significant. Claim:
any syndication technology that does not require new HTTP verbs has
an immediate adoption advantage other one that does, irrespective of
the engineering merits.
It depends on how and if the verbs need to be handled in a special way
on the server. If they don't, I can't agree with you. And as far as I
can tell, ERROR doesn't put any requirement on anyone but the client
developers, which would need to do something (probably a lot more
difficult) in this area anyway.
If the intent of the method is that a client report an error to the
server, then you will be making implementation assumptions beyond
HTTP. See above about servers having log files for starters :)
cheers
Bill