malliaridis commented on code in PR #2605: URL: https://github.com/apache/solr/pull/2605#discussion_r1708063991
########## solr/compose-ui/src/commonMain/kotlin/org/apache/solr/composeui/components/environment/data/JavaPropertiesResponse.kt: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +/* + * 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.solr.composeui.components.environment.data + +import kotlinx.serialization.SerialName +import kotlinx.serialization.Serializable + +/** + * Response class of the `java-properties` API endpoint. Review Comment: 1. Exactly. 2. If we would have a Solr client or API that would provide these data classes, we could remove any classes related to the API. These API data classes are also mapped to avoid any direct dependencies that would break multiple places if the API change in the future. This way we have a clean separation of concern and we could reduce further the visibilities of the classes (e.g. only `HttpEnvironmentStoreClient` would know the API classes) UI projects usually have two modules, one for the UI and one for the logic. Some people may consider spliting it further based on the logical grouping of components, like creating a separate module for only `auth` related components. Since I wanted to keep everything in a single module, which should be discussed, I made the separation of UI and non-ui components with packages (`org.apache.solr.composeui.components` for logic and `org.apache.solr.composeui.ui` for UI). This is also the reason why there are so many "insignificant" interfaces. If we would have two modules, the abstractions would be necessary and the UI would know / see the interfaces, but not the implementations. Another benefit of the interfaces is for providing test or preview implementations for UI testing and previews that can be rendered in the IDE without launching the app. -- 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
