Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch: Shortening operation names?

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Tue, 06 December 2011 08:27 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
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 4D33C21F8B3C for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:27:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.020, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 NqOq26vByE6w for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:27:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EEA1721F8B37 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Dec 2011 00:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 06 Dec 2011 08:27:39 -0000
Received: from p5DCCAB3D.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.171.61] by mail.gmx.net (mp064) with SMTP; 06 Dec 2011 09:27:39 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+c+/9YVvKcV2aJepROeNFYaK2qYCexxhsprbVY9i +hs6AIHvtCjpNr
Message-ID: <4EDDD1F4.4080902@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 09:27:32 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
References: <1323136558.12382.28.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1323136558.12382.28.camel@neutron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch: Shortening operation names?
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: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:27:43 -0000

On 2011-12-06 02:55, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> It's been suggested on more than one occasion that the operation names
> in JSON Patch are too verbose. I've countered with the point that if you
> transmit via HTTP and "Content-Encoding: gzip", the verbosity is nicely
> compressed out. This argument has served me well (insofar as it tends to
> silence most critics), but I continue to get challenged on this point.
> I'm curious to know what position APPSAWG members may have. Should I use
> "rm" or even "-" instead of the more verbose "remove"?

I can live with full names, but wouldn't object to ultra-short names 
such as "+", "-", "?" etc either.

Best regards, Julian