3 ms·
What about 402 or 409? But that was not really what I meant. In your case, it does not cost the API-owner anything to use 503 instead of 500, he has to provide
by allendoerfer 12y ago
What about 402 or 409? But that was not really what I meant. In your case, it does not cost the API-owner anything to use 503 instead of 500, he has to provide an additional message anyway. If instead a more common error occurs, it is just nice for the client to get a standard status code, that is known by frameworks and libraries and can potentially already be handled at that level. Just because something can not be standardized entirely does not mean you should not standardize parts of it.