news.chmurka.net — przeglądarka postów

gof-cut-this-news@cut-this-chmurka.net.invalid (Adam W.) writes:

> But is it correct? Should server in this case respond with 200, or with
> 201?

> I found this in the RFC 3977:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3977#section-5.1.2

> But it's still not clear to me -- I just understand that it's a grey
> area (200 is "posting allowed", 201 is "posting not allowed", and
> there's no code for "posting will be allowed after auth") and readers
> should use CAPABILITIES instead.

When we were writing the standard, we discovered that there were some
clients that, when presented with a 201, will never attempt to POST even
if you have authentication credentials configured that they might use.
Returning 200 made those clients do the right thing: attempt to post, get
a permission error, realize that maybe they should try to authenticate,
and end up in the right spot.

It sounds like you've run into a client with the exact opposite problem.
This is unfortunately a mess, and as you say the only real solution is for
the client to use CAPABILITIES.

-- 
Russ Allbery (eagle@eyrie.org)             <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

          Please post questions rather than mailing me directly.
     <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.

Powrót do strony głównej