On Feb 3, 2015, at 5:27 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Sébastien Blanc <scm.blanc@gmail.com> wrote:Agreed but we should make that clear in the clients (Java and Node) when receiving the response (I'm thinking about the callbacks) , that said, an javadoc/comment should de enough.Luckily they say nothing about the actual status code:
_______________________________________________On JavaDoc, it just says "statusCode - the status code as returned by the server."=> Nothing to change.More important is to update this:But that's covered with the JavaDoc update, required for the change from 200 -> 202-Matthias
Envoyé de mon iPhoneHi,I recently noticed that we are (IMO) incorrectly returning 200 (OK):Since we really do submit an async job here, and its processing may not have been started when we do return the 200 (OK), I'd like to propose a slight change here to instead use 202 (Accepted):If the team is OK (ha ha) with this, I will track this in JIRA-Matthias--Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev--Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev