[Rails-core] Re: Fwd: [WSG] REST HTTP error codes and responses for form/parameter validation

[Chris Abad]

Wouldn't a '409 Conflict' make more sense for errors? I realize how we serve out data via a REST API (i.e. XML data format, HTTP status codes, etc.) is pretty manual/flexible at this point and everyone is probably doing things a little bit differently (some people are using slightly different status codes, some people are formatting xml a little differently, etc.) What sort of guidelines should we be looking to follow to help our APIs be "ActiveResource-compatible"? Is it too early for that right now? Do you think things will get to the point to where Rails will make it difficult NOT to conform to the ActiveResource conventions? I know that's generally the idea with most best-practices for Rails, but I don't see things quite being there yet in terms of generating a REST API. On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:46 AM, Rick Olson wrote: Looks good to me, except for the type attribute of <errors>. Any thoughts on using 400?  I know that's kind of a generic status code, but none of the others really fit. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---