Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard

[James M Snell <[e-mail]>]

Using json-patch with my json-predicates draft allows testing for existing
value type before applying a patch operation.
On Dec 16, 2012 4:33 PM, "Matthew Morley" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I am usually lurking and struggling to keep up with these posts. But, I
> concur with James, this really is a non-issue in practice.
>
> The JSON Pointer expresses a path down a JSON object to a specific context.
> The Patch expresses a change within or to that context.
> Everything about the both standards is about that end context.
>
> If you want to confirm the type of the context before applying a patch,
> this should probably be part of a test operation. I'm not sure if this is
> possible at this point (?), but that is where the logic should exist.
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:22 AM, James M Snell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Robert Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Markus Lanthaler
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hmm.. I think that’s quite problematic. Especially considering how
>>> JSON Pointer is used in JSON Patch.
>>>
>>> I agree--I provided the same feedback privately. It seems
>>> straightforwardly unsound.
>>>
>>>
>> In practice it doesn't seem to be much of an issue.
>>
>> Specifically, if I GET an existing document and get an etag with the
>> JSON, then make some changes and send a PATCH with If-Match, the fact that
>> any given pointer could point to an array or object member doesn't really
>> matter much.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>>   >  GET /the/doc HTTP/1.1
>>
>>   <  HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>>      ETag: "my-document-tag"
>>      Content-Type: application/json
>>
>>      {"1":"foo"}
>>
>>   >  PATCH /the/doc HTTP/1.1
>>      If-Match: "my-document-etag"
>>      Content-Type: application/json-patch
>>
>>      [{"op":"add","path":"/2","value":"bar"}]
>>
>> Generally speaking, someone should not be using PATCH to perform a
>> partial modification if they don't already have some knowledge in advance
>> what they are modifying. The only time the apparent ambiguity becomes an
>> issue is when a client is blindly sending a patch to an unknown endpoint...
>> in which case, you get whatever you end up with.
>>
>> - James
>>
>>
>>
>>> - Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Markus Lanthaler
>>> >
>>> > @markuslanthaler
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: James M Snell [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:41 PM
>>> > To: Markus Lanthaler
>>> > Cc: IETF Discussion; IETF Apps Discuss
>>> > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call:
>>> <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > JSON Pointer does not distinguish between objects and arrays. That is
>>> not determined until the pointer is applied to an actual object instance...
>>> the pointer "/1" is valid against {"1":"a"} or ["a","b"]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Markus Lanthaler <
>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I've asked that before but didn't get an answer. So let me ask again
>>> (even
>>> > though I'm quite sure it has already been asked by somebody else).
>>> >
>>> > How does JSON Pointer distinguish between objects and arrays? E.g.
>>> consider
>>> > the following JSON document:
>>> >
>>> > {
>>> >   "foo": "bar",
>>> >   "1": "baz"
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > As I read the draft, the JSON Pointer "/1" would evaluate to "baz" even
>>> > though that's probably not what the author intended. Is there a way to
>>> avoid
>>> > that?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Markus
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Markus Lanthaler
>>> > @markuslanthaler
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: [e-mail] [mailto:apps-discuss-
>>> > > [e-mail]] On Behalf Of The IESG
>>> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:01 PM
>>> > > To: IETF-Announce
>>> > > Cc: [e-mail]
>>> > > Subject: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-
>>> > > 07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working
>>> > > Group
>>> > > WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
>>> > > - 'JSON Pointer'
>>> > >   <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>> > >
>>> > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>> > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
>>> the
>>> > > [e-mail] mailing lists by 2012-12-25. Exceptionally, comments
>>> may
>>> > > be
>>> > > sent to [e-mail] instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> > >
>>> > > Abstract
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >    JSON Pointer defines a string syntax for identifying a specific
>>> > > value
>>> > >    within a JSON document.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > The file can be obtained via
>>> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/
>>> > >
>>> > > IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> > >
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/ballot/
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > apps-discuss mailing list
>>> > > [e-mail]
>>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > apps-discuss mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > apps-discuss mailing list
>>> > [e-mail]
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matthew P. C. Morley
>