Re: [apps-discuss] JSON patch: "test" operation

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Thu, 01 December 2011 09:11 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 082B321F8C61 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:11:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.886
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.287, 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 qOVfEaF77N26 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AC06221F8C1E for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 01:11:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 01 Dec 2011 09:10:58 -0000
Received: from p5DCCA32C.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.36]) [93.204.163.44] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 01 Dec 2011 10:10:58 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+40t99aaa4/q2qvlt6sFeAMIJR58xV+mLcOKbNns F1pgmy9knb3D/S
Message-ID: <4ED74499.2050804@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 10:10:49 +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: TianLinyi <tianlinyi@huawei.com>
References: <4ED64A26.5030003@gmx.de> <1322672952.2050.8.camel@neutron> <CAPW_8m6v0wgQoMXzFFrA5bgjksWY-No3cmuJeFa1X6RJwOvctg@mail.gmail.com> <3615F3CCD55F054395A882F51C6E5FDA1820A0A1@szxeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <3615F3CCD55F054395A882F51C6E5FDA1820A0A1@szxeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
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: "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: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 09:11:04 -0000

On 2011-12-01 08:17, TianLinyi wrote:
> Hi, All
>
> I think test would make it complicated. The test could result in <, >,
> <=, >=, = conditions.

"=", not the others. (Which, yes, maybe trick for complex objects)

> If we want something like HTTP If-Match mechanism, I would think it
> should not be in the JSON patch. We should keep JSON patch simple. The
> status code is better to be delivered in the protocol layer who delivers
> the JSON patch document.

It's not a status code, it's context information.

How do you deliver it when patching a JSON document in the local file 
system?

Best regards, Julian