On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Sébastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)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:
*
https://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-unifiedpush-java-client/org/jbos...
*
https://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-unifiedpush-nodejs-client/
On JavaDoc, it just says "statusCode - the status code as returned by the
server."
=> Nothing to change.
More important is to update this:
https://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-unifiedpush-rest/sender/index.ht...
But that's covered with the JavaDoc update, required for the change from
200 -> 202
-Matthias
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 3 févr. 2015 à 22:13, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> a écrit :
Hi,
I recently noticed that we are (IMO) incorrectly returning 200 (OK):
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/jaxrs...
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):
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html#sec10.2.3
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(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)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