Re: Modeling conditional update based on existence of a dependent resource
Dan Haywood <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.rest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALJOYLFi83dBZ6XMZcqxDTMVY3i2R7QxQYQc4fvhA-jUMtrvag@mail.gmail.com> |
On 3 July 2012 12:56, Mike Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Dan Haywood <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> ** >> >> >> >> >> On 3 July 2012 12:38, Mike Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Shaunak Kashyap <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Using HTTP, if resource A exists, I would like PUT /uri/for/resource/B >>>> to succeed. If resource B does not exist, I would like the same PUT request >>>> to fail, responding with a status code that indicates to the client that >>>> resource A does not exist. So what is a good status code to respond with in >>>> the failure case? >>>> >>> >>> Would 404 not suffice here? >>> >>> >> >> But the resource being put to DOES exist, so 404 doesn't make sense. >> > > The second sentence starts with "If resource B does not exist", am I > missing something? > Ah... in which case you are right. However, given the question is phrased as an either/or, I suspect the OP meant to say "if resource A does not exist...", in which case 422 or, maybe, your 409 might work. I've asked in the past here about what should be used for validation errors, and 422 was the advice I got. You might have been a respondent on one of those threads yourself, Mike. Dan > > >> >> To me it's more like a validation error, so consider 422 >> ("unprocesssable entity"). >> >> > If 404 really isn't right then 409 Conflict is probably the next best > option in this case. > > Cheers, > M >