Re: [apps-discuss] JSON Patch

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 10 November 2011 10:01 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 EE0C221F8B20 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:01:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.352
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.352 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.753, 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 1qD7g8qNVnrH for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:01:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CF40D21F8B1C for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:01:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2011 10:01:08 -0000
Received: from p5DCC32E8.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.50.232] by mail.gmx.net (mp072) with SMTP; 10 Nov 2011 11:01:08 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18oixdUE1koq/ERQx+v09kgL6ZjFiBt/CPY2DAOOo sL50dQjlmcY6Kt
Message-ID: <4EBBA0DD.9020605@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:01:01 +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: <4EB1482E.1040600@adobe.com> <4EB14C2E.8040208@gmx.de> <1320254564.2622.37.camel@neutron>
In-Reply-To: <1320254564.2622.37.camel@neutron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
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: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 10:01:11 -0000

On 2011-11-02 18:22, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
> Thanks everyone for the feedback so far. Some replies:
>
> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 13:39 +0000, Michael Dürig wrote:
>> What is missing (wrt. to [2]) is a reorder operation.
>
> The ability to move items in an array has come up and seems
> straightforward. A need (and semantics) of moving a value between two
> arbitrary locations in a JSON document is not well understood.

+1. So are you planning to add this? Would it make sense to make a 
concrete proposal?

> On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 14:57 +0100, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> As an XML person, seeing an XPath-like syntax make me happy. But
>> wouldn't be "dot" notation be much simpler, given where JSO comes from?
>
> A few of reasons we went with slashes:
>
> 1. Less confusing where array elements are involved.

...I'll have to ask :-). What about changing the notation for array 
elements to use [ and ]? More complexity in the expression language, but 
also more readability, I believe...

> 2. Slashes are less likely to appear in object member names, hence less
> percent-encoding.
> 3. Pointers are intended to be specified in URI fragment identifiers,
> and would appear to some (unsophisticated humans or machines) like a
> filename extension.

Thanks for the explanation.

Best regards, Julian