On 18/01/2013 15:04, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
Hi,
From proposals regarding remote exceptions in [1], I am going to do the
following during CXF migration:
1) Update HTTP mapping codes (see "Mapping exceptions to HTTP codes")
I don't understand why WorkflowException should be mapped to
INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR: you get workflow exceptions when something is not
allowed within the current workflow instance, for example. There is no
error on the server, the error is on the client asking for a workflow
action not available for various reasons.
Similarly for PersistenceException - thrown for example when a duplicate
key is found: this is not happening (under normal conditions) for a
server fault but for a client's.
2) Update some checked exceptions to runtime ones (see "Checked vs Runtime
exceptions")
Sounds reasonable.
Regards.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrei Shakirin [mailto:ashaki...@talend.com]
Sent: Montag, 7. Januar 2013 10:01
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: RE: Exception propagation in Rest interface: HTTP header vs body for
details
I have tried to summarize remote exceptions mapping as well as some
improvement ideas in [1].
[1] is also linked from [2].
Review, remarks, discussions are welcome.
Cheers,
Andrei.
[1]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SYNCOPE/Remote+Exceptions
[2]
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/SYNCOPE/REST+API+upgrade
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrei Shakirin [mailto:ashaki...@talend.com]
Sent: Freitag, 14. Dezember 2012 09:37
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: RE: Exception propagation in Rest interface: HTTP header vs
body for details
Yep, will go this way: keep current propagation one to one plus more
verbose exception in HTTP body (perhaps on the second step).
Thanks for participating in discussion.
Cheers,
Andrei.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sberyoz...@gmail.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 13. Dezember 2012 18:34
To: dev@syncope.apache.org
Subject: Re: Exception propagation in Rest interface: HTTP header vs
body for details
On 13/12/12 16:45, Francesco Chicchiriccò wrote:
On 13/12/2012 14:27, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
Hi
On 13/12/12 12:42, Andrei Shakirin wrote:
Hi,
I am working on Rest interface migration (to Apache CXF) and
analysing exception propagation from service to client.
Actually SyncopeClientCompositeErrorException is sent using:
a) ExceptionType HTTP header containing exception type
(enumeration
SyncopeClientExceptionType)
b)<ExceptionType>.element HTTP header as list of strings for
error details (that are used to fill
SyncopeClientException.elements)
I find that fine at the moment, as far as details information is
only simple and short list of strings. Potentially it is
possible to have more complex and long structures in exception
details.
Therefore the question is does it make sense to use HTTP header
only for ExceptionType and send details in HTTP body?
It means that we will change network protocol between client and
service, not sure how critical it is for existing Syncope users.
There are 2 alternatives:
a) leave the propagation as it is: send type and details in HTTP
headers. In the future additional information exceptional still
can be sent with HTTP body.
b) send only ExceptionType in HTTP header and details element in
HTTP body.
Do you have any preferences for (a) and (b) or there are other
alternatives?
Perhaps it might make sense to keep a simple HTTP header anyway,
for the receivers to be optionally able to quickly check the
exception type without having to read the response, and also
return the body with all the details, including the actual
exception type, so that the whole info can then be analyzed on
the client side after the request has been completed, so one more
possible option
:-)
Hi,
I like this (c) option as well:
1. ExceptionType + elements in the HTTP header (like as now) 2.
HTML
(short) body with more verbose description, possibly localized
(1) could be used by 3rd party REST clients while (2) could be
used to provide better error message for admin console.
Hi, I'm rereading and I guess I may've repeated what Andrei already
suggested with his option a) :-)
Either way, looks like we all in agreement
Cheers, Sergey
Regards.
--
Dott. Francesco Chicchiriccò
Tel +393290573276
Amministratore unico @ Tirasa S.r.l.
Viale D'Annunzio 267 - 65127 Pescara
Tel +39 0859116307 / FAX +39 0859111173
http://www.tirasa.net
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
"To Iterate is Human, to Recurse, Divine"
(James O. Coplien, Bell Labs)
--
Francesco Chicchiriccò
ASF Member, Apache Syncope PMC chair, Apache Cocoon PMC Member
http://people.apache.org/~ilgrosso/
