[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17880897#comment-17880897
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on MRESOLVER-600:
------------------------------------------
doddi commented on code in PR #576:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/576#discussion_r1753604013
##########
maven-resolver-spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/spi/connector/transport/http/RFC9457/BiConsumerChecked.java:
##########
@@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
+/*
+ * 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.eclipse.aether.spi.connector.transport.http.RFC9457;
+
+@FunctionalInterface
+public interface BiConsumerChecked<T, U, E extends Exception> {
Review Comment:
Yes I kind of agree but I was trying to ensure that the original exceptions
(which are different for each transporter) are not lost and thought the wrapped
solution is more convenient (albeit a little ugly) as it is a single call
rather than the if/else that would have to replace it.
> Implement RFC 9457
> ------------------
>
> 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 [RFC
> 9112|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112.html#name-status-line] section 4
> defines the response status code to optionally include a text description
> (human readable) of the reason for the status code.
> 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://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/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)
