Subject: RE: OCP error and result indication

From: "Martin Stecher" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:34:32 +0200

> 
> Let's approach the problem from the design point of view. What
> information are we trying to relay here?
> 
> 	1) is the result a success or failure? (true/false)
> 	2) what kind of success (if it is success)?
> 	3) what kind of error (if it is an error)?
> 
> (a) relies on specific code ranges (e.g., 2xx) to support (1) and
>     supports (2) and (3) via specific code values (e.g., 404)
> 
> (d) relies on the presence of Error parameter to support (1) and
>     does not support (2) and
>     supports (3) via specific code values (e.g., 404)
> 
> (e) relies on the outcome "sign" to support (1) and
>     supports (2) and (3) via specific code values (e.g., 404)
> 
> 
> (e) is clearly better than (a) from the design point of view because
> it is symmetric, but (a) is what people are used to. (d) lacks
> functionality that might be needed for extensions.
> 

Comparing (e) with (a), (a) remains my favorite. I got used to the specific code range meanings.

> Should we go with (a)?

I say: yes, let's go with (a).

Martin