IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch

"Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com> Wed, 23 November 2011 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218DA11E80FF for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:02:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.651
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zNZ0YqcoRsiY for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:02:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu1sys200aog111.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog111.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A057011E8100 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:02:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.161.173]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob111.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKTs01MUeipGS59/vo/FcDz7PUFqL30FN9@postini.com; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:02:28 UTC
Received: by mail-gx0-f173.google.com with SMTP id b1so1962439ggn.4 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:02:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.154.3 with SMTP id g3mr38444106yhk.119.1322071344951; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.3] (S0106a021b762dbb3.vf.shawcable.net. [174.1.40.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm5484252ano.9.2011.11.23.10.02.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:02:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1322071342.6133.14.camel@neutron>
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:02:22 -0800
In-Reply-To: <4ECD2F60.5080902@gmx.de>
References: <4EB1482E.1040600@adobe.com> <4EB14C2E.8040208@gmx.de> <1320254564.2622.37.camel@neutron> <4EBBA0DD.9020605@gmx.de> <4ECBC843.60900@gmx.de> <1321986297.2091.1.camel@neutron> <4ECCE93C.406@gmx.de> <1322068744.6133.1.camel@neutron> <4ECD2F60.5080902@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-K9VWghtkXs+PRItISSjD"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.3-2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:02:30 -0000

On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 18:37 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 2011-11-23 18:19, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> > I'm now inclined to simply make "to" a JSON pointer as well.
> > Semantically it's clear, It's easy to apply, and JSON diff
> > implementations can be smart if they want and notice something moved
> > from one node in the graph to another.
> 
> +1, except that I'm not convinced that leaving this optional is a good 
> idea...



I'd say if JSON pointer is adopted for "to", it should only be JSON
pointer.

Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email