Re: Where's my FOO ? [Was: Daily patch: gateway]

Hi,

Actually... What is really the reason for not having really descriptive 
status text?
There is already a list of definitions for status-codes...
So i believe it would not be a problem to make same for status-text... 
or is it?

Having OK as status-text is really confusing... but so also having 
Foo/Bar in some cases...

So... [ if i may really vote on  anything ;)  ]
i would vote +2 on making status-text be real rfc compliant (and thus 
descriptive)
or +1 for having at least Foo/Bar instead of OK

Regards,
    Konstantin Vayner,
    Appcell MT, Ltd.

Bruno David Simões Rodrigues wrote:

>Citando Stipe Tolj <[email protected]>:
>
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Why is this patch ? I liked the "FOO". This one and the 202 responses are
>>>      
>>>
>>very
>>    
>>
>>>important.
>>>      
>>>
>>ehmm, ok this goes to my credit. 
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>BOFH story:
>>>.net programmer [.NOT]: Hei, I've tryed to send a message but kannel gave
>>>      
>>>
>>me an
>>    
>>
>>>error
>>>BOFH: really ? but I heard your mobile beeping, you got your message
>>>.NOT: but my xmlhttp.net object haven't received any 200 OK
>>>BOFH: true
>>>...long pause...
>>>BOFH: and ? anything else ?
>>>NOT: but if I don't receive a 200 OK, how would I know if it was ok ?
>>>BOFH: you check for a 202 FOO
>>>.NOT: 202 ? FOO ?
>>>BOFH: have you read http RFC anytime in your life ?
>>>...another long pause and a face wondering what's a RFC....
>>>BOFH: When you try to send a message, the message goes to a queue. Fist to
>>>kannel queue, them to smsc queue. Kannel can't reply with a 200 OK because
>>>      
>>>
>>it
>>    
>>
>>>can't know if it'll be a OK delivery at that time. The better it can do is
>>>      
>>>
>>202
>>    
>>
>>>Accept the message and try it's best to do it's job. Too bad there's no
>>>      
>>>
>>"269
>>    
>>
>>>Don't_worry,_everything's_gonna_be_ok"
>>>      
>>>
>>:))
>>
>>Hmm if we'd be very RFC2616 pendantic, then we should say "HTTP/1.x
>>202 Accepted". If it makes you or others a toooo big problem that it
>>return OK now, I can live with "Foo" either.
>>    
>>
>
>;)
>As I see in the code, we had "%n FOO" to avoid having an array with status text
>vs status code (200OK, 202 Accept, 403 Not authenticated). It's not needed, you
>only need the status code, not the text. Foo is a nice general text to send
>because it won't match any expected text - not ok, not accepted. 403 FOO is
>acceptable, 403 OK is not.
>
>And we already are RFC pedantic - we already send 202, not 200. There's no 200
>response anywhere in smsbox.
>
>The BOFH joke is about people expecting 200 when they should expect any 2xx
>code, because every 2xx is a OK. When they expect 200 and kannel sends 202, they
>say that kannel has a bug, and then I show them the RFC and shut them up.
>
>I vote +1 for having FOO back. I vote +2 for having FOO and BAR randomly ;)
>
>
>  
>
>>Stipe
>>
>>[email protected]
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Wapme Systems AG
>>
>>Vogelsanger Weg 80
>>40470 Düsseldorf
>>
>>Tel: +49-211-74845-0
>>Fax: +49-211-74845-299
>>
>>E-Mail: [email protected]
>>Internet: http://www.wapme-systems.de
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>wapme.net - wherever you are
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>