Rob Kinyon wrote: > On 6/5/06, Mark Stosberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think you might get a "File Not Found" in the browser. The message >> isn't quite accurate. The truth is "unable to dispatch". But dispatching >> URLS blurs the line between what corresponds to a real "file" and what >> doesn't, and 404/File Not Found seems perhaps the closest equivalent >> standard. > > Isn't a 500 more appropriate here given that 404 is more of a > webserver error and 500 is more of an application error? Yes, I > understand that C::A::Dispatch is playing a webserver on TV, but it's > still an app-related issue. Rails's routesmapping and Catalyst's > responder maps are both 500 errors.
I don't know. If my application has a URL like: /app/foo which works, and the user types in "/app/foos", which is not a valid URL what kind of message would you expect to recieve? If you said a 500, then what if I tell you that I'm not even using Dispatch (maybe app/foo/index.html exists). Should the error message change from a 404 to a 500 just because I'm handling the URL mapping in a different way? 404 actually means "Not Found", not "File Not Found". 500 means "Internal Error". But in the above situation we did not encounter an error. We mapped the URL and didn't find a way to dispatch it. I don't think that's an error. If however there is some serious desire for this to be a 500 instead of a 404, then I'd consider making it configurable. BTW, you can probably tell from my comment, but I think both Rails and Catalyst made a mistake in choosing a 500 error for this. -- Michael Peters Developer Plus Three, LP --------------------------------------------------------------------- Web Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=cgiapp&r=1&w=2 To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
