[oslc-core] Issue with Compact Rendering of a deleted (410) resource

[Ian Green1]

Hello Mike

I don't see that this is an issue with the OSLC specification.    The UI 
Preview spec does not explicitly state what should be done on receipt of a 
410, but I don't think that it should. Clients should deal with a 410 in a 
manner that is appropriate to them. 

It's hard to see from your example what is going on - it looks like your 
server is responding with a 200, with an HTML page that reports "410 
Gone". Do you have a concern about your server returning a 410 in this 
case?  If so, that would be a topic for discussion on this list.

best wishes,
    -ian

ian.green at uk.ibm.com (Ian Green1/UK/IBM at IBMGB)
Chief Software Architect, Requirements Definition and Management
IBM Rational



From:
Michael A Jaworski <majawors at us.ibm.com>
To:
oslc-core at open-services.net
Date:
23/09/2011 18:45
Subject:
[oslc-core] Issue with Compact Rendering of a deleted (410) resource
Sent by:
oslc-core-bounces at open-services.net



Hi all,

I'm seeing a problem with the widget that controls the compact rendering 
of a resource (rich hover), specifically after the resource has been 
deleted. There are two scenarios that I've encountered that exhibit 
different behavior:

1) Acceptable case: If the resource is deleted before the compact document 
is fetched, the widget properly recognizes the 410 code returned by the 
server and disables the rich hover on any following attempts, also 
displaying a message which says, "More information is not available". (See 
Image1.jpg attached)
(See attached file: Image1.jpg)
2) Failing case: If the resource is deleted after a compact document has 
been previously fetched, the widget appears to ignore the 410 status 
returned by the server and attempts to render the compact document again 
(which instead just displays a nasty 410 exception in plain text). (See 
Image2.jpg attached)
(See attached file: Image2.jpg)

>From a server standpoint, our best course of action is to display this 
nasty exception with as pretty language as possible, but I don't think 
that's going to be acceptable in the long run. Is this a problem with the 
current spec? I would appreciate any insight as to why this happens, and 
whether or not a defect should be filed for this.

Thanks,

Mike Jaworski
Rational Requirements Composer - Server Development[attachment 
"Image1.jpg" deleted by Ian Green1/UK/IBM] [attachment "Image2.jpg" 
deleted by Ian Green1/UK/IBM] 
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Core mailing list
Oslc-Core at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-core_open-services.net








Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-core_open-services.net/attachments/20110926/0dc1955b/attachment-0003.html>