Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JSON patch: "test" operation

This was discussed previously, and the consensus at the time was for
must-understand.

Paul

On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 17:12 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-12-30 06:24, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 16:40 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> in discussions in Apache Jackrabbit space, two more features have been
> >> mentioned as potentially useful:
> >>
> >> 1) The ability to send additional data along with the actual patch; such
> >> as a plain text string describing the change (think "commit" message),
> >> or user information.
> >
> > I've had a few thoughts here.
> >
> > First, I think commit messages should probably be out of scope for JSON
> > Patch specifically. That said, we should allow the ability to build on
> > the specified format, allowing for extensions, including additional
> > (more domain-specific) operations.
> >
> > I'm generally against the idea of using out-of-band metadata such as
> > header fields in an HTTP request, mostly because it ties metadata to the
> > transfer protocol rather (what I believe rightly should be tied to the
> > document).
> >
> > I'm interested in feedback on the possibility that I add text stating
> > that if an operation cannot be determined for a given patch object, then
> > an implementation should ignore it. Thoughts?
> > ...
> 
> That's exactly the question we need to answer; is the extensibility 
> model "must understand" or is it "must ignore"? In the latter case, 
> people can define their own operators, such as "commit-message". But of 
> course it would make it harder to define new operators later on.
> 
> If JSON had a comment syntax there would be a simple, although a bit 
> hacky way to extend the format. But it does not...
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-discuss@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss