Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 11 August 2020 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EEB3A040F for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFrfu4kPSlIW for <jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EEBA3A044E for <jsonpath@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.217.116] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BQyww5zCzzyxm; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:30:08 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAAWU5L7PtaFsLd=cXthzDLvr89Va=tCLN04xk2O8VA8Gom5UDw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:30:08 +0200
Cc: jsonpath@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618856208.175825-d87099d623c0f787e8687aefa6073ee4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C5A814CE-888E-427F-85F2-45C846174353@tzi.org>
References: <CAAWU5L7PtaFsLd=cXthzDLvr89Va=tCLN04xk2O8VA8Gom5UDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Davide Bettio <davide.bettio@ispirata.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/jsonpath/PX_GU2zlofvpdJxEduQCCUyMEUY>
Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath
X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page <jsonpath.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/jsonpath/>
List-Post: <mailto:jsonpath@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath>, <mailto:jsonpath-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:30:14 -0000

On 2020-08-11, at 18:17, Davide Bettio <davide.bettio@ispirata.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Darrel Miller on dispatch@ietf.org started a "JSONPath or JMESPath"
> thread,

Right, please find (and read) the thread here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/FoCwaHJVIqJP78GdHT-IaDH32ks/

The reasons he gave for choosing JMESPath are exactly the ones that made me propose the activity this mailing list has been created for.

> I think we should take a decision on this topic before making
> any other decision.

It is a bit outside the scope, as this mailing list was created for standardizing JSONPath, but we certainly don’t want to expend the effort for that if JMESPath is already the solution.
I can’t reach https://www.jmespath.org/ at the moment, so 

> If we go for JMESPath, discussing JSONPath here would be useless, so
> can we prioritise this topic?

Sure.  So what are the advantages of JMESPath over JSONPath that are not about what we’ve set out to do here?

Grüße, Carsten