On Sep 17, 2010, at 13:23, Paul Berry <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Paul Berry wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Luke Kanies <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Shouldn't 'none' be a valid state? Or maybe 'unknown'? I would think >> that's different from 'invalid'. >> > > Do you mean if the user requests information about a host for which there > is neither a certificate request nor a certificate? I think I would prefer > to use a JSON "null" value for this case (equivalent to Ruby's "nil"). That > would be more consistent with the existing REST API's and with the semantics > of "certificate_statuses". > > > I'm inparticular about the actual term, just that we have something for > hosts with no information at all. > Hmm, I just did some more experiments and some more thinking about RESTful protocols, and I've changed my opinion. I now think that what we should actually do in the case of an unknown host is return an HTTP 404 "not found" error. This would be easy to implement, and consistent with what our other REST APIs do (for instance the existing APIs for requesting certificates). It would also be consistent with other RESTful protocols (such as the REST API for Amazon S3--see http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/index.html?ErrorResponses.html). Does this sound reasonable? Sorry for the empty response, fat-fingered my phone. Yes, that's very reasonable and a good idea. I like Mathias's proposal, and I think all it leaves to solve is signing of certs, right? -- Luke Kanies | +1-615-594-8199 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en.
