[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MRESOLVER-600?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17880899#comment-17880899
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on MRESOLVER-600:
------------------------------------------

michael-o commented on code in PR #576:
URL: https://github.com/apache/maven-resolver/pull/576#discussion_r1753623409


##########
maven-resolver-spi/src/main/java/org/eclipse/aether/spi/connector/transport/http/RFC9457/RFC9457Reporter.java:
##########
@@ -20,60 +20,65 @@
 
 import java.io.IOException;
 
+import com.google.gson.Gson;
+import com.google.gson.JsonSyntaxException;
+
 /**
- * A reporter for RFC9457 messages.
+ * A reporter for RFC 9457 messages.
  * RFC9457 is a standard for reporting problems in HTTP responses as a JSON 
object.
  * There are members specified in the RFC but none of those appear to be 
required,
  * @see <a href=https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9457#section-3-7>rfc9457 
section 3.7</a>
  * Given the JSON fields are not mandatory, this reporter simply extracts the 
body of the
  * response without validation.
- * A RFC9457 message is detected by the content type 
"application/problem+json".
+ * A RFC 9457 message is detected by the content type 
"application/problem+json".
  *
  * @param <T> The type of the response.
  * @param <E> The base exception type to throw if the response is not a 
RFC9457 message.
  */
-public abstract class Rfc9457Reporter<T, E extends Exception> {
-    protected abstract boolean isRfc9457Message(T response);
+public abstract class RFC9457Reporter<T, E extends Exception> {
+    private static final Gson GSON = new Gson();

Review Comment:
   I am OK with GSON as long as it does not leak into other components 
(plugins) and causes classpath issues.





> 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)

Reply via email to