I would have to agree with mat. But to each their own. The return
codes frequently make no sense from twitter, so i guess the fact that
it doesn't make sense it is irrelevant, so long as it is consistent.

On Dec 3, 6:29 pm, mat <mat.st...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that 400 is bad request, and the client SHOULD NOT repeat the
> request without modifications (w3.org's emphasis), and 503 means
> service unavailable, try again later, and can include a retry-after
> header, would it not have made more sense to change the response code
> of the REST API to the "more correct" one?
> On Dec 3, 10:41 pm, Wilhelm Bierbaum <wilh...@twitter.com> wrote:
> > In an effort to simplify our APIs, we are standardizing the response
> > codes returned by our various systems. Historically, the Search API
> > has returned 503 for rate limiting whereas the REST API has returned
> > 400. So, we are changing the response codes sent back from the Search
> > API.
> > Starting Wednesday, December 16th, 2009 the search API will respond
> > with error code 400 in the event that the number of requests you have
> > made exceeds the quota afforded by your rate limit.
> > Please update your response handler accordingly.
> > If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on twitter-
> > development-talk.

Reply via email to