On 5/20/14, 12:13 PM, Darran Lofthouse wrote: > Just pulling together some related HTTP management interface changes and > I see this one is still pending: - > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-907 > > Are we interested in addressing this one? > Yes. > Personally I am not convinced we need to be going beyond just using > appropriate codes from the existing set of status codes, anything else > would mean HTTP users get specific information that native users do not. > > However one thought, could we add some form of category to the actual > failure response? That way we would have something we can use to map a > status code, we already have another case in the code base that checks > the error code to decide which status code to use!! If we added a > category to a failure clients would then also potentially be able to use > this themselves. > That's fine, so long as it does not alter the structure of the response's "failure-description" field. IOW it would need to be a sibling field to "failure-description", not a child.

I'm not happy at all with some of the stuff I've done using message ids in failure descriptions to decide what to do about failures, so I'd be happy to see a better mechanism. > Regards, > Darran Lofthouse. > > > _______________________________________________ > wildfly-dev mailing list > wildfly-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/wildfly-dev >