IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 11 December 2012 23:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B30221E8096; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:43:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.073
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.073 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.474, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZ7G1iGcmi80; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7ED21E808E; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.242.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9BCAA22E253; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:43:23 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch-08.txt> (JSON Patch) to Proposed Standard
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4RtVBNxQu03hZxFZiRg-7s2G_KYKFJjUUvSC_UUFwE_FZFdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:43:25 +1100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3448719B-185A-476A-A927-25A68D4B4358@mnot.net>
References: <20121211150005.28209.96763.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC4RtVBNxQu03hZxFZiRg-7s2G_KYKFJjUUvSC_UUFwE_FZFdg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, "apps-discuss@ietf.org" <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:43:25 -0000

On 12/12/2012, at 2:25 AM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:

> 1. Do I have this right, or am I mistaken about the result of that operation?

The former.

> 2. Assuming I have it right, can someone explain why it's this way?

"add" has the semantics of "make the value *this*".

"replace" has the semantics of "make the existing value *this*"; if there isn't an existing value, it's an error.


> 3. Can someone explain why this is the right way to specify it, rather
> than using "replace" for this?

As has already been mentioned, there are multiple tools in the box.

Cheers,


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email