Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@locus.apache.org Received: (qmail 98248 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2007 08:13:47 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 13 Jun 2007 08:13:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 77962 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2007 08:13:50 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-lucene-solr-dev-archive@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 77940 invoked by uid 500); 13 Jun 2007 08:13:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact solr-dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Received: (qmail 77930 invoked by uid 99); 13 Jun 2007 08:13:50 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:13:50 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-100.0 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from [140.211.11.4] (HELO brutus.apache.org) (140.211.11.4) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:13:46 -0700 Received: from brutus (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by brutus.apache.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6D47141EA for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:13:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <27807537.1181722406014.JavaMail.jira@brutus> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:13:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Ryan McKinley (JIRA)" To: solr-dev@lucene.apache.org Subject: [jira] Commented: (SOLR-135) Restructure / Refactor codebase for shared libraries In-Reply-To: <30080461.1170412325525.JavaMail.jira@brutus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-135?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12504156 ] Ryan McKinley commented on SOLR-135: ------------------------------------ > do we want to rework the packages too? I think now is as good of a time as any. I agree that having independent jar files with classes in the same package is less then great. > on the other hand it does have very HTTP specific error codes in it. > I don't see any problem with HTTP status codes in the base class. It seems standard enough. I think we may want to have multiple error types that overlap with the same HTTP status code (500) (Not now, but...) I would like to see typed exceptions so they could be handled differently -- BadRequestException() etc... > Restructure / Refactor codebase for shared libraries > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: SOLR-135 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-135 > Project: Solr > Issue Type: Wish > Reporter: Ryan McKinley > Priority: Minor > Attachments: SOLR-135-RestructureForCommonJar.patch, SOLR-135-RestructureForCommonJar.patch, SOLR-135-RestructureForCommonJar.patch > > > For SOLR-20 and other java projects, it would be nice to have common code share a codebase that does not require lucene or junit to compile. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. - You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.