You could compromise and do a 400.5.... O_o On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:51, Matt Sanford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Of course right after sending a lengthy public email I see something that > could let us keep 503 and fix the proxy errors. I'm working with operations > on that, and if it does not pan out I'll confer with Alex on 400 versus 401. > Stay tuned. > — Matt > > On Dec 8, 2008, at 09:46 AM, Alex Payne wrote: > > > We use 400 for rate limiting on the REST API. Matt and I are > discussing whether or not this might be the correct response. > Thoughts? > > On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 09:17, Cameron Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The error code for search rate limiting will be changing from HTTP > > 503 to HTTP 401 in the very near future (today or tomorrow). For > > details, continue reading. > > > Are you sure you want to use 401 for this? 401 would indicate authorization > > required. If you're asking for credentials, that would make sense, but if > > you're not, I would think the 503 is still the proper response irrespective > > of broken proxies. I don't see other codes that have that one's temporal > > semantics. > > > -- > > ------------------------------------ personal: > http://www.cameronkaiser.com/ -- > > Cameron Kaiser * Floodgap Systems * www.floodgap.com * > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- If you have integrity, nothing else matters. -- Alan Simpson > --------------- > > > > > > -- > Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc. > http://twitter.com/al3x > > > -- | Abraham Williams | Web Developer | http://abrah.am | Brazen Careerist | Pro Hacker | http://www.brazencareerist.com | PoseurTech LLC | Mashup Ambassador | http://poseurte.ch | Web608 | Community Evangelist | http://web608.org | This email is: [] blogable [x] ask first [] private
