[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17878421#comment-17878421
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on MRESOLVER-600:
------------------------------------------
doddi opened a new pull request, #576:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/576
Added an RFC9457Reporter for each of the 3 Transporters.
At the moment I tried to keep the original exception messages if the error
response is not an RFC9457 type. This did create a little more complexity in
the implementation than is perhaps necessary.
If the exceptions to be thrown can be consisted throughout the transporters
then this PR could also be simplified considerably. At the moment I have taken
the stance not to make any potential breaking changes in messaging.
> Implement RFC9457
> -----------------
>
> Key: MRESOLVER-600
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-600
> Project: Maven Resolver
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Resolver
> Reporter: Mark Dodgson
> Priority: Minor
>
> HTTP1.1 [RFC7230|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7230#section-3.1.2]
> section 3.1.2 defines the response status code to optionally include a text
> description (human readable) of the reason for the status code. A more
> detailed RFC is
> [RFC2616|https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec6.html]
> There is an additional [RFC9457|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457] which
> makes use of the body to inform of a reason for the error response allowing
> for easier investigation.
> h2. Why is this important
> [RFC9113|https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9113] is the HTTP2 protocol
> standard and the response status only considers the [status
> code|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9113#name-response-pseudo-header-fiel]
> and not the reason phrase, as such important information can be lost in
> helping the client determine a route cause of a failure.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
