gerlowskija commented on PR #897:
URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/897#issuecomment-1151391577
> Do we really need separate classes for specifying the `EndPoint` ? can we
just make them internal to `SeciurityConfHandler` ?
The API classes can be internal if there's consensus for that, but my
personal vote would be that they stay separate.
1. The current mapping of APIs -> RequestHandlers is based entirely on the
v1 API without any consideration of v2. There's no reason in a v2 world for
the `GET /cluster/aliases` API to live in CollectionsHandler.java.
2. Many of our RequestHandler's are absolute monsters. The more code we can
keep out of those files, the better IMO. Particularly since one of my ultimate
goals is to see the "meat" of our APIs move from
SomeRequestHandler.handleRequestBody to these individual API classes.
> We should have concrete POJOs that describe the payloads ?
We do, yep. You didn't see any at the time of your previous comment because
I had only pushed up 2 of the `GET` APIs at that point (which of course don't
have payloads). I've updated the PR to cover all of the security APIs, so you
should see payload POJOs now if you take another look (e.g.
`JWTConfigurationPayload`, `UpdateRuleBasedAuthPermissionPayload`, etc.)
--
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: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: issues-unsubscr...@solr.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: issues-h...@solr.apache.org
