Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JSON patch: "test" operation
"Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com> Fri, 30 December 2011 05:24 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 0675211E8089 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 soTz4bkKqC9Q for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eu1sys200aog118.obsmtp.com (eu1sys200aog118.obsmtp.com [207.126.144.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8866E11E807F for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f169.google.com ([209.85.213.169]) (using TLSv1) by eu1sys200aob118.postini.com ([207.126.147.11]) with SMTP ID DSNKTv1LIz59UQlKwUrV/KIznu8YK9govqfL@postini.com; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:24:52 UTC
Received: by yenq10 with SMTP id q10so9326584yen.14 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.73.230 with SMTP id v66mr50458585yhd.61.1325222690789; Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (S0106a021b762dbb3.vf.shawcable.net. [174.1.40.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c44sm53581451yhm.5.2011.12.29.21.24.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:49 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1325222688.18477.25.camel@neutron>
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 21:24:48 -0800
In-Reply-To: <4EFC8A08.7000105@gmx.de>
References: <4ED64A26.5030003@gmx.de> <BC564D94-6D00-4D63-863A-8AAD00E57B3A@tzi.org> <4ED77513.3070506@gmx.de> <6E443D75-D1AC-451F-9B17-115C9A6C7696@mnot.net> <4ED7F8C2.9030804@gmx.de> <37E09A53-E9F4-45D2-BB8F-79655BECDBB2@mnot.net> <1322779521.1958.1.camel@neutron> <4EFC8A08.7000105@gmx.de>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-VS8u/qoIW7xiHB+rnuuK"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2-1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JSON patch: "test" operation
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: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 05:24:54 -0000
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? > 2) The ability to *copy* (not *move*) objects around. This is another example of something trivial for the patch implementation to perform, so I'm inclined to add it to the next draft. Paul
- [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation mike amundsen
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation TianLinyi
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Carsten Bormann
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Carsten Bormann
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Mark Nottingham
- Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation Paul C. Bryan
- [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JSON p… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Sam Johnston
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Nico Williams
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Sam Johnston
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Sam Johnston
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Sam Johnston
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Julian Reschke
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Paul C. Bryan
- Re: [apps-discuss] more feature requests, was: JS… Julian Reschke