openstack team mailing list archive

[Peter Portante <peter.a.portante@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul,

I would like to echo Hua's and John's concern about 5xx code uses.
Using 3xx codes should be fine. Can you give a sufficient argument to
consider 5xx?

Thanks,

-peter

On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Hua ZZ Zhang <zhuadl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 2) The basic idea is that an object server (via middleware or otherwise)
>>> will be given the ability to respond to a request to indicate ‘not me but I
>>> know who should handle this’.  I’m thinking this makes more sense as a 5xx
>>> response with additional information (partition, nodes) about the route
>>> included in the response body (as opposed to a 3xx code)
>
> My concern is that 5xx response is a kind of error that occurs on server
> side. The server can't handle the client request
> due to internal error (500), not implemented (501), bad gateway(502),
> service unavailable(503), gateway timeout(504)
> or http version not supported(505).  It doesn't make much sense to use it in
> your context of 'not me but I know who should handle this’.
>
> I'm also curious about how could this happen if the object URL is the unique
> identity. How does the server exactly know what client
> request is another object? Based on what kind of information?
>
> Edward Zhang(张华)
> Advisory Software Engineer
> Software Standards & Open Source Software
> Emerging Technology Institute(ETI)
> IBM China Software Development Lab
> e-mail: zhuadl@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> "Luse, Paul E" ---2013-06-01 上午 07:53:21---"Luse, Paul E"
> <paul.e.luse@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> "Luse, Paul E" <paul.e.luse@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent by: "Openstack"
> <openstack-bounces+zhuadl=cn.ibm.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 2013-06-01 上午 07:53
>
>
> To
>
> "openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>
>
> cc
>
>
> Subject
>
> [Openstack] [Swift] Storage Server Redirection
>
>
> I’m looking at tacking this item:
>
>
>
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/swift/+spec/support-storage-server-redirects
>
>
>
> and wanted to get some feedback on the following observations/thoughts:
>
>
>
> 1) This is a capability that would be checked in independent of other
> blueprints that might use it (2 are mentioned in the link above) and unit
> test code would be the only way to initially exercise it; it essentially
> enables other activities at this point
>
>
>
> 2) The basic idea is that an object server (via middleware or otherwise)
> will be given the ability to respond to a request to indicate ‘not me but I
> know who should handle this’.  I’m thinking this makes more sense as a 5xx
> response with additional information (partition, nodes) about the route
> included in the response body (as opposed to a 3xx code)
>
>
>
> 3) The proxy server will be modified to process the response accordingly but
> using the partition, nodes info from the response as opposed to
> object_ring.get_nodes() to determine which nodes to use
>
>
>
> 4) Protection will be required to avoid endless redirection loops
>
>
>
> 5) This applies only to GET operations
>
>
>
> Appreciate any thoughts/feedback.,  In addition to the two usages of this
> capability referenced in the blueprint I think there’s applicable to another
> Tiering blueprint which interests me as well.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul
>
>  _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>
>
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>