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:
* https://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-unifiedpush-java-client/org/jboss/aerogear/unifiedpush/message/MessageResponseCallback.html#onComplete(int)
* 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.html#POST

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@apache.org> a écrit :

Hi,

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

_______________________________________________
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