amogh-jahagirdar commented on code in PR #14035: URL: https://github.com/apache/iceberg/pull/14035#discussion_r2377137224
########## api/src/main/java/org/apache/iceberg/exceptions/NotModifiedException.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.iceberg.exceptions; + +import com.google.errorprone.annotations.FormatMethod; + +/** Exception to indicate that resource is unchanged. */ +public class NotModifiedException extends RESTException { Review Comment: Sorry for the delay, @gaborkaszab @pvary . So @pvary, I do think it's like point 1 where it's a reference implementation of showing how things should work but i'm also aiming for "principle of least surprise" here. Also I just am a little bit against exposing concepts like exceptions for representing cases where it's not really exceptional. At the end of the day the 304 is really the server telling the client "hey use your cache". Separating out the client side and server side: 1.) On the client side, after looking a bit further, clients like the Github cli and other Http client frameworks do essentially handle null response bodies for 304 and it's expected that the response body is null for a 304. 2.) On the server side, it sounds like the reason for adding the exception was that our current implementation of `RESTCatalogAdapter` doesn't have a way of expressing non-200 codes without an exception? I feel like that's the limitation to address in `RESTCatalogAdapter`. In the end I'm mostly +0 if we want to do the exception mostly because it just feels like exposing an unnecessary concept to work around the current reference server handling, and that can lead to people misusing that exception since it's in the public API. It'd be ideal if we can at least show how complicated the other solution is for being able to return status codes other than 200 without an exception. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
