起初，我认为204是有意义的，但经过讨论，我相信404是唯一真正正确的回答。考虑以下数据:

用户:约翰，彼得

METHOD  URL                      STATUS  RESPONSE
GET     /users                   200     [John, Peter]
GET     /users/john              200     John
GET     /unknown-url-egaer       404     Not Found
GET     /users/kyle              404     User Not found
GET     /users?name=kyle`        200     []
DELETE  /users/john              204     No Content

背景知识:

the search returns an array, it just didn't have any matches but it has content: an empty array. 404 is of course best known for url's that aren't supported by the requested server, but a missing resource is in fact the same. Even though /users/:name is matched with users/kyle, the user Kyle is not available resource so a 404 still applies. It isn't a search query, it is a direct reference by a dynamic url, so 404 it is. After suggestions in the comments, customizing the message of the 404 is another way of helping out the API consumer to even better distinguish between complete unknown routes and missing entities.

不管怎样，我的意见。

使用公共枚举对响应内容进行编码，以允许客户端打开它并相应地派生逻辑。我不知道你的客户如何区分“数据未找到”404和“网络资源未找到”404之间的区别?您不希望有人浏览到userZ/9，并让客户端怀疑请求是否有效，但没有返回数据。

我强烈反对404，而支持204或200的空数据。或者至少应该使用带有404的响应实体。

请求被接收并被正确处理——它确实触发了服务器上的应用程序代码，客户机可能没有犯任何错误，因此整个客户机错误代码(4xx)类可能不合适。

更重要的是，404的发生有很多技术原因。例如，应用程序在服务器上被暂时停用或卸载，代理连接问题等等。

当然，这种情况下存在5xx错误类，但实际上，受影响的中间件组件通常无法知道错误在它们这一边，然后只是假设错误在客户端，然后响应404而不是500/503。

因此，仅根据状态代码，客户端无法区分404(表示“您正在寻找的东西不存在”)和404(表示“有严重错误，请将此错误报告给运维团队”)。

This can be fatal: Imagine an accounting service in your company that lists all the employees that are due to an annual bonus. Unfortunately, the one time when it is called it returns a 404. Does that mean that no-one is due for a bonus, or that the application is currently down for a new deployment and the 404 is actually coming from the tomcat that it's supposed to be installed into, instead of from the application itself? These two scenarios yield the same status code, but they are fundamentally different in their meaning.

对于需要知道所请求的资源不存在而不是暂时不可访问的应用程序来说，没有响应实体的404几乎是行不通的。

此外，许多客户端框架通过抛出异常来响应404，而不询问进一步的问题。这迫使客户端开发人员捕获异常，对其进行评估，然后基于此决定是否将其记录为由监视组件捕获的错误，或者是否忽略它。这对我来说也不太好。

The advantage of 404 over 204 is that it can return a response entity that may contain some information about why the requested resource was not found. But if that really is relevant, then one may also consider using a 200 OK response and design the system in a way that allows for error responses in the payload data. Alternatively, one could use the payload of the 404 response to return structured information to the caller. If he receives e.g. a html page instead of XML or JSON that he can parse, then that is a good indicator that something technical went wrong instead of a "no result" reply that may be valid from the caller's point of view. Or one could use a HTTP response header for that.

尽管如此，我还是更喜欢204或200的空白回复。这样，请求的技术执行状态就与请求的逻辑结果分开了。2xx的意思是“技术执行ok，这就是结果，处理它”。

我认为在大多数情况下，应该让客户来决定一个空的结果是否可以接受。通过返回404而不返回响应实体(尽管技术执行正确)，客户端可能决定将根本不是错误的情况视为错误。

Another perspective: From an operations point of view a 404 may be problematic. Since it can indicate a connectivity/middleware problem rather than a valid service response, i would not want a fluctuating number of "valid" 404s in my metrics/dashboards that might conceal genuine technical issues (e.g. a misconfigured proxy somewhere in the request routing) that should be investigated and fixed. This is further excarbated by some APIs even using 404 instead of 401/403 (e.g. gitlab does such a thing), to conceal the information that the request URI would have been valid but the request lacked authorization to access it. In this case too a 404 should be treated as a technical error and not as a valid "resource not found" result.

Edit: Wow, this has caused a lot of controversy. Here is another argument against 404: Strictly from a HTTP spec (RFC7231) point of view, 404 does not even mean that a resource does not exist. It only means that the server has no current representation of the requested resource available, and this even may be only temporary. So strictly by HTTP spec, 404 is inherently unreliable regarding the nonexistence of a requested thing. If you want to communicate that the requested thing positively does not exist, do not use 404.

根据w3的帖子，

200好了

请求成功。随响应返回的信息取决于请求中使用的方法

202年接受

请求已接受处理，但处理尚未完成。

204无内容

服务器已经完成了请求，但不需要返回实体主体，并且可能希望返回更新后的元信息。

400错误请求

由于语法错误，服务器无法理解请求。客户不应该在没有修改的情况下重复请求

401年未经授权

请求需要用户身份验证。响应必须包含一个WWW-Authenticate报头字段

404未找到

服务器没有发现任何与Request-URI匹配的内容。没有说明这种情况是暂时的还是永久的

令人难过的是，如此简单和明确的东西在这个帖子中变成了“基于意见的”。

HTTP服务器只知道“实体”，这是对任何内容的抽象，可以是静态网页、搜索结果列表、其他实体列表、某物的json描述、媒体文件等等。

每个这样的实体都应该由一个唯一的URL来识别，例如。

/user/9——一个单独的实体:user ID=9 /users——单个实体:所有用户的LIST /media/x.mp3——一个单独的实体:一个名为x.mp3的媒体文件 /search—单个实体:基于查询参数的动态CONTENT

如果服务器通过给定的URL找到一个资源，那么它的内容是什么并不重要——2G的数据、null、{}、[]——只要它存在，它就会是200。但是如果服务器不知道这个实体，它将返回404“not Found”。

One confusion seems to be from developers who think if the application has a handler for a certain path shape, it should not be an error. In the eyes of the HTTP protocol it does not matter what happened in the internals of the server (ie. whether the default router responded or a handler for a specific path shape), as long as there is no matching entity on the server to the requested URL (that requested MP3 file, webpage, user object etc), which would return valid contents (empty or otherwise), it must be 404 (or 410 etc).

另一个令人困惑的地方似乎是“没有数据”和“没有实体”。前者是关于实体的内容，后者是关于实体的存在。

示例1:

No data: /users返回200 OK，正文:[]，因为还没有人注册 没有实体:/users返回404，因为没有路径/users

示例2:

No data: /user/9返回返回200 OK，正文:{}，因为用户ID=9从未输入他/她的个人数据 没有实体:/user/9返回404，因为没有用户ID=9

示例3:

No data: /search?name=Joe返回200 OK[]，因为DB中没有Joe 没有实体:/search?name=Joe返回404，因为没有路径/搜索

为了总结或简化，

2xx:可选数据:格式良好的URI: Criteria不是URI的一部分:如果Criteria是可选的，可以在@RequestBody和@RequestParam中指定，应该导致2xx。例如:按名称/状态过滤

标准是URI的一部分:如果标准是强制性的，只能在@PathVariable中指定，那么它应该导致4xx。例如:按唯一id查找。

对于所问的情况: "users/9"将是4xx(可能是404) 但是对于“用户”呢?Name =superman”应该是2xx(可能是204)