- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 00:01:42 -0500
- To: Leigh Dodds <leigh@ldodds.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg-comments@w3.org
On Nov 1, 2005, at 2:40 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote: > These are quite different failure modes and it would be useful to be > able to distinguish between them. Without that facility a client > cannot > legitimately know whether it can retry its request, or for how long > the server may be unavailable. I think the WG was aware of these implications of choosing only a single fault and overloading it for different conditions. There's not been any interest in defining additional faults and serializing them with different HTTP codes as you suggest. > This additional feature could be supported by allowing a choice in > response codes: Hmm, no, I don't believe that's possible in WSDL. We'd have to define two additional faults. > * 503 Service Unavailable, optionally with a Retry-After header, to > indicate temporary unavailability and an estimated time after which > the > request can be retried ServiceUnavailable (or some such), though I'm not sure how to specify the Retry-After header. > * 403 Forbidden to refuse abusive requests and indicate that a retry > is not permissible. As for this, I don't see what it adds as distinct from QueryReqRefused. I mean, I'm not sure you can say that a request is abusive *per se*. It may depend on local conditions and those change. Just not sure. Cheers, Kendall PS--I somehow missed this message when you originally sent it. Sorry I'm so late responding.
Received on Thursday, 5 January 2006 05:01:46 UTC