On 12/9/06, Thierry Boileau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John,
At this time in the Handler class, the 501 status is used for 2 cases :
- the method of the request is unknown (not a GET, PUT, etc),
- the method is known, but there is no handler for the resource.
I think we all agree that 501 status fits the first case.
If the target is null then is that a sign of of a bug in the
implementation or a broken request?
For the former, it's arguable that a 501 makes sense but, IMHO, a
straight 500 is more correct. I.e. the 501 implies that we haven't
implemented something and that's a known condition whereas the 500
indicates server bug.
In the latter case, it seems pretty clear to me that the response
should be a 400 (Bad Request) since it's actually a malformed request.
Though, that evolves to the 405 since we know its the method name
that's the problem and so we can use the 405 directly.
But, for the
second case, I would like to ask the following question : if the response
status is 405, is it possible to define the allowed methods for the resource
though the resource cannot be handled?
I wonder if status 404 should be used instead in this case.
I think that would be very misleading.
In terms of returning something useful in the allows header, isn't the
work basically the same as what's already being done for the
Handler.handle() method? I.e., lookup what handle*() methods are
defined.
Thanks,
John
