Re: Where's my FOO ? [Was: Daily patch: gateway]

[Konstantin Vayner]

Hi,

Actually... What is really the reason for not having really descriptive status text?
There is already a list of definitions for status-codes...
So i believe it would not be a problem to make same for status-text... or is it?

Having OK as status-text is really confusing... but so also having Foo/Bar in some cases...

So... [ if i may really vote on anything ;) ]
i would vote +2 on making status-text be real rfc compliant (and thus descriptive)
or +1 for having at least Foo/Bar instead of OK

Regards,
Konstantin Vayner,
Appcell MT, Ltd.

Bruno David Sim�es Rodrigues wrote:

Citando Stipe Tolj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

Hi,

Why is this patch ? I liked the "FOO". This one and the 202 responses are

very

important.

ehmm, ok this goes to my credit.

BOFH story:
.net programmer [.NOT]: Hei, I've tryed to send a message but kannel gave

me an

error
BOFH: really ? but I heard your mobile beeping, you got your message
.NOT: but my xmlhttp.net object haven't received any 200 OK
BOFH: true
...long pause...
BOFH: and ? anything else ?
NOT: but if I don't receive a 200 OK, how would I know if it was ok ?
BOFH: you check for a 202 FOO
.NOT: 202 ? FOO ?
BOFH: have you read http RFC anytime in your life ?
...another long pause and a face wondering what's a RFC....
BOFH: When you try to send a message, the message goes to a queue. Fist to
kannel queue, them to smsc queue. Kannel can't reply with a 200 OK because

it

can't know if it'll be a OK delivery at that time. The better it can do is

202

Accept the message and try it's best to do it's job. Too bad there's no

"269

Don't_worry,_everything's_gonna_be_ok"

:))

Hmm if we'd be very RFC2616 pendantic, then we should say "HTTP/1.x
202 Accepted". If it makes you or others a toooo big problem that it
return OK now, I can live with "Foo" either.

;)
As I see in the code, we had "%n FOO" to avoid having an array with status text
vs status code (200OK, 202 Accept, 403 Not authenticated). It's not needed, you
only need the status code, not the text. Foo is a nice general text to send
because it won't match any expected text - not ok, not accepted. 403 FOO is
acceptable, 403 OK is not.

And we already are RFC pedantic - we already send 202, not 200. There's no 200
response anywhere in smsbox.

The BOFH joke is about people expecting 200 when they should expect any 2xx
code, because every 2xx is a OK. When they expect 200 and kannel sends 202, they
say that kannel has a bug, and then I show them the RFC and shut them up.

I vote +1 for having FOO back. I vote +2 for having FOO and BAR randomly ;)

Stipe

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Wapme Systems AG

Vogelsanger Weg 80
40470 D�sseldorf

Tel: +49-211-74845-0
Fax: +49-211-74845-299

E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
-------------------------------------------------------------------
wapme.net - wherever you are