[usrbinbash]

> Was there any ambiguity?

Did I say there was?

> I don't think this is the obscure detail you are making it out to be

Where did I call this detail "obscure"?

My post is meant as a light-hearted, humorous note pointing out one of the many reasons why it is in general a good idea for clients to implement the principles outlined in the article.

[samwho]

Throttling, tarpitting, and circuit-breakers are something I'd love to visualise in future, too. Throttling on its own is such a massive topic!

[rewmie]

> Did I say there was?

Yes. You explicitly wrote in your comment "This is the client side of things", as if there was any ambiguity in where requests came from.

> Where did I call this detail "obscure"?

You explicitly wrote that "(...) there is an additional piece of info everyone who writes clients needs to see" on what people like you "who implement backend services, may do if clients ignore such wisdom", as if somehow this was obscure, arcane and secret knowledge that no team whatsoever working on backend services with client teams ever dared share with the outside world.

> (...) why it is in general a good idea for clients to implement the principles outlined in the article.

I don't think there is a single developer out there working on client/server projects that aren't aware of the need to handle request failures and be mindful of service level agreements, specially when dealing with retries.

Your post reads like addressing life guards to let them know that there is an additional piece of info everyone who works as a lifeguard needs to see: that the water is wet.