Intermediate thoughts at 9fa5c10:

• currently I am interested only into getting the new writer to write blocks as files (not yet implemented)
• the new writer currently implements BlockWriter<List<BlockItem>> in order for me to get it to work as fast as possible, subject to change in the future with BlockWriter<Block>
• introduced a PathResolver, resolving the path to a block, be it a block-as-file or a block-as-dir is a core function of the readers/writers, I extracted that logic in a new component so that it can be thoroughly tested on it's own and also to provide a lot of flexibility by allowing us to mock this functionality when we test the readers/writers itself
• the PathResolver also separates the concern of resolving block paths from the reader/writer (single responsibility is improved)
• the object creation (type of) of the readers, writers, removers and path resolvers is done now via a configurable value
• added abstract classes, there will be reusable logic (in some places already exists) and will help us to formalize what dependencies the given service will need, regardless of specific implementation

Update at 5c0a707:

• we now have simple logic to write the block as file to the filesystem
• in this v1 commit, I aim to simply start writing to the fs
• what am I missing
• what additional handles I need to make
• what does the cleanup at this stage looks like
• what can be removed
• what about cases where we receive a list of block items, but the block header and/or proof is missing, technically this means that I must have received the header previously and expect the proof later, the block stream is a continuous stream of block items delimited by block header and block proof

@jsync-swirlds thanks for the review, I have missed a couple of places where I could clean up additionally, however at some places it looks like you were looking at older changes, files were amended before you have made your review. I have also included #319 here and will bring additional changes to the exception handling to clean that up as well.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.91892% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.88%. Comparing base (4cde6a4) to head (34c1c4e).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #355      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     97.77%   97.88%   +0.11%     
- Complexity      343      374      +31     
============================================
  Files            70       76       +6     
  Lines          1256     1323      +67     
  Branches         88       91       +3     
============================================
+ Hits           1228     1295      +67     
  Misses           19       19              
  Partials          9        9