Thanks everyone for the advice.  We'll go with 503.

On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:28, Michael Hausenblas wrote:

> 
> 
>> Seriously, I think that
>>  413 Request Entity Too Large
>> 
>> would be a good solution:
> 
> 
> I disagree. Just checked back w/ colleagues on the #rest IRC channel, they 
> also agree with 503.
> 
> Cheers,
>       Michael
> --
> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
> Ireland, Europe
> Tel. +353 91 495730
> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
> http://sw-app.org/about.html
> 
> On 28 Jun 2011, at 11:10, Martin Hepp wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> Looking for some advice from the community.  If we time out a slow-running 
>>> SPARQL query, what is the most appropriate HTTP status code to return to 
>>> the client?  We had been trying 408, but the problem with that is that some 
>>> clients (notably Firefox) take it on themselves to keep retrying the 
>>> request, which isn't really what we want.
>>> 
>>> Should we be returning 500 instead?
>> 
>> What about
>>  402 Payment Required?
>> 
>> ;-)
>> 
>> Seriously, I think that
>>  413 Request Entity Too Large
>> 
>> would be a good solution:
>> 
>> "The server is refusing to process a request because the request entity is 
>> larger than the server is willing or able to process. The server MAY close 
>> the connection to prevent the client from continuing the request.
>> 
>> If the condition is temporary, the server SHOULD include a Retry- After 
>> header field to indicate that it is temporary and after what time the client 
>> MAY try again."
>> 
>> 500 Internal Server Error was also my first guess, but this may not stop 
>> clients from trying again.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Jun 28, 2011, at 8:21 AM, Bill Roberts wrote:
>> 
>>> Looking for some advice from the community.  If we time out a slow-running 
>>> SPARQL query, what is the most appropriate HTTP status code to return to 
>>> the client?  We had been trying 408, but the problem with that is that some 
>>> clients (notably Firefox) take it on themselves to keep retrying the 
>>> request, which isn't really what we want.
>>> 
>>> Should we be returning 500 instead?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 


Reply via email to