+1
On Sep 18, 2013, at 7:35 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
No, it's more like
* may not be null
* is to long
etc
Not providing IDs, credentials etc. Makes sense ?
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I will say +1 for this as long as none of the error messages returned introduce security
issues by exposing too much info.
On Sep 18, 2013, at 4:27 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
> Following up on [1], currently we give 400 (Bad Request), with no good meaning, when
creating/updating a PushApplication or a Variant;
>
>
> The HTML page(!) simply says "The request sent by the client was syntactically
incorrect "
>
> As suggested in [1] a good idea is using Bean Validation and returning better errors.
>
> The result would be a 400 (Bad Request) response, containing the errors and their
messages as a JSON object (instead of a HTML page).
>
> E.g.:
>
> {"name":"may not be null"}
>
> This is a) more meaningful and we can also get rid of our 'hard-coded'
validation rules, like:
>
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/blob/master/src/m...
>
> -Matthias
>
>
> [1]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-255
>
> --
> 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
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev