* Michael Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-05T12:29:51] > Rob Kinyon wrote: > > 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?
I'm with Michael, here. I don't buy the webserver/application error description. 4xx is an error caused by a bad request from the client. 5xx is a failure by the server to fulfill an apparently valid request. If /app/foos does not map to a resource, and the client should not be requesting it, 4xx is the correct response class. 404 seems like a very reasonable code, given that no resource (read: runmode) was found to map that request. > 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. Making it configurable might be useful in the future anyway, for the truly pedantic to implement 410 codes when they refactor. I believe, strongly, that 404 is the correct default response. -- rjbs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
