So do we just use whatever name we want instead? Can we use 'referrer'? ;-)
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 02/02/2015 09:07 PM, Everett Toews wrote: > >> On Feb 2, 2015, at 7:24 PM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net >> <mailto:s...@dague.net>> wrote: >> >> On 02/02/2015 05:35 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >>> >>>> On 01/29/2015 12:41 PM, Sean Dague wrote: >>>> >>>>> Correct. This actually came up at the Nova mid cycle in a side >>>>> conversation with Ironic and Neutron folks. >>>>> >>>>> HTTP error codes are not sufficiently granular to describe what happens >>>>> when a REST service goes wrong, especially if it goes wrong in a way >>>>> that would let the client do something other than blindly try the same >>>>> request, or fail. >>>>> >>>>> Having a standard json error payload would be really nice. >>>>> >>>>> { >>>>> fault: ComputeFeatureUnsupportedOnInstanceType, >>>>> messsage: "This compute feature is not supported on this kind of >>>>> instance type. If you need this feature please use a different instance >>>>> type. See your cloud provider for options." >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> That would let us surface more specific errors. >>>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Standardization here from the API WG would be really great. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What about having a separate HTTP header that indicates the "OpenStack >>>> Error Code", along with a generated URI for finding more information >>>> about the error? >>>> >>>> Something like: >>>> >>>> X-OpenStack-Error-Code: 1234 >>>> X-OpenStack-Error-Help-URI: http://errors.openstack.org/1234 >>>> >>>> That way is completely backwards compatible (since we wouldn't be >>>> changing response payloads) and we could handle i18n entirely via the >>>> HTTP help service running on errors.openstack.org >>>> <http://errors.openstack.org>. >>>> >>> >>> That could definitely be implemented in the short term, but if we're >>> talking about API WG long term evolution, I'm not sure why a standard >>> error payload body wouldn't be better. >>> >> >> Agreed. And using the “X-“ prefix in headers has been deprecated for >> over 2 years now [1]. I don’t think we should be using it for new things. >> >> Everett >> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6648 >> > > Ha! Good to know about the X- stuff :) Duly noted! > > > -jay > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Kevin Benton
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev