Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

So, do you have a suggestion?


On 12/12/2012, at 11:24 AM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]> wrote:

>> "add" has the semantics of "make the value *this*".
> 
> Yeh, I guess the problem I have with that is that that's not the
> semantics most of us attach to the concept of "add a thing to a set".
> And it bothers me that "add to an object" and "add to an array" have
> different semantics.
> 
> That difference is unsettling.  It's OK to have "add" on an array have
> the semantics of "insert", especially because there's no "insert"
> action.  But having "add" on an object have the semantics of "replace"
> seems bad, partly because it's inconsistent with the semantics it has
> on an array and because there's already a "replace" action.
> 
> If I have { "baz": "qux", "foo": "bar" }, these two do exactly the same thing:
> 
> case 1a: [{ "op": "add", "path": "/baz", "value": "blarg" }]
> 
> case 1b: [{ "op": "replace", "path": "/baz", "value": "blarg" }]
> 
> Both result in { "baz": "blarg", "foo": "bar" }
> 
> While these are different:
> 
> case 2a: [{ "op": "add", "path": "/hah", "value": "blarg" }]
> 
> case 2b: [{ "op": "replace", "path": "/hah", "value": "blarg" }]
> 
> Case 2a results in { "baz": "blarg", "foo": "bar", "hah": "blarg" },
> and 2b is an error.
> 
> Case 1 just seems wrong.  The "add" in 1a should be an error, and then
> life would make sense.
> 
> 
>> As has already been mentioned, there are multiple tools in the box.
> 
> Stretching the analogy, having the wrench act as a hammer in some
> cases does not make for a particularly well defined, robust tool box.
> 
> Barry

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/