You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@couchdb.apache.org by "Paul C. Bryan" <pa...@forgerock.com> on 2011/10/23 23:35:20 UTC
JSON Patch Internet-Draft 02
I've posted the third draft of the JSON Patch Internet-Draft to the
IETF:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-02
It should address all of the outstanding issues that have been raised to
date. Your feedback is welcome.
Paul
Re: JSON Patch Internet-Draft 02
Posted by Jamie Talbot <ja...@jamietalbot.com>.
Hi Paul,
That makes sense. I was thinking of something along the lines of
"mkdir -p /non/existent/path/new/". Your alternative is obviously
equivalent, if a little more verbose.
Cheers,
Jamie.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:06, Paul C. Bryan <pa...@forgerock.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 08:42 +1000, Jamie Talbot wrote:
>
>> Hi Paul,
>> I don't think I've seen the prior discussions on this, so perhaps this
>> has already been asked and answered. With regards to adding to
>> objects, am I right in assuming that multiple levels can be accessed
>> through / separators? To extend example A1:
>>
>> An example target JSON document:
>>
>> { "foo": "bar" }
>>
>> A JSON Patch document:
>>
>> [ { "add": "/baz/bud", "value": "qux" } ]
>>
>> Might end up something like this:
>>
>> {
>> "foo": "bar",
>> "baz": {
>> "bud": "qux"
>> }
>> }
>
>
> Based on your example target JSON document, in my current
> implementation, your JSON Patch document would fail because there is no
> "/baz" object to add "bud" to. The JSON Patch document that would
> achieve what you're suggesting would be:
>
> [
> { "add": "/baz", "value": { "bud": "qux" } }
> ]
>
> Based on this, I can see the need to be clearer on how JSON Pointers
> should be interpreted to clear the difference between these, and to
> create a few non-trivial examples to illustrate.
>
>
>> Is that the intention? If so, you might want to consider at least one
>> example that shows that behaviour. If that's not the intention, do
>> you have an objection to it?
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Jamie.
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 07:35, Paul C. Bryan <pa...@forgerock.com> wrote:
>> > I've posted the third draft of the JSON Patch Internet-Draft to the
>> > IETF:
>> >
>> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-02
>> >
>> > It should address all of the outstanding issues that have been raised to
>> > date. Your feedback is welcome.
>> >
>> > Paul
>> >
>
--
---
http://jamietalbot.com
Re: JSON Patch Internet-Draft 02
Posted by "Paul C. Bryan" <pa...@forgerock.com>.
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 08:42 +1000, Jamie Talbot wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> I don't think I've seen the prior discussions on this, so perhaps this
> has already been asked and answered. With regards to adding to
> objects, am I right in assuming that multiple levels can be accessed
> through / separators? To extend example A1:
>
> An example target JSON document:
>
> { "foo": "bar" }
>
> A JSON Patch document:
>
> [ { "add": "/baz/bud", "value": "qux" } ]
>
> Might end up something like this:
>
> {
> "foo": "bar",
> "baz": {
> "bud": "qux"
> }
> }
Based on your example target JSON document, in my current
implementation, your JSON Patch document would fail because there is no
"/baz" object to add "bud" to. The JSON Patch document that would
achieve what you're suggesting would be:
[
{ "add": "/baz", "value": { "bud": "qux" } }
]
Based on this, I can see the need to be clearer on how JSON Pointers
should be interpreted to clear the difference between these, and to
create a few non-trivial examples to illustrate.
> Is that the intention? If so, you might want to consider at least one
> example that shows that behaviour. If that's not the intention, do
> you have an objection to it?
> Cheers,
>
> Jamie.
>
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 07:35, Paul C. Bryan <pa...@forgerock.com> wrote:
> > I've posted the third draft of the JSON Patch Internet-Draft to the
> > IETF:
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-02
> >
> > It should address all of the outstanding issues that have been raised to
> > date. Your feedback is welcome.
> >
> > Paul
> >
Re: JSON Patch Internet-Draft 02
Posted by Jamie Talbot <ja...@jamietalbot.com>.
Hi Paul,
I don't think I've seen the prior discussions on this, so perhaps this
has already been asked and answered. With regards to adding to
objects, am I right in assuming that multiple levels can be accessed
through / separators? To extend example A1:
An example target JSON document:
{ "foo": "bar" }
A JSON Patch document:
[ { "add": "/baz/bud", "value": "qux" } ]
Might end up something like this:
{
"foo": "bar",
"baz": {
"bud": "qux"
}
}
Is that the intention? If so, you might want to consider at least one
example that shows that behaviour. If that's not the intention, do
you have an objection to it?
Cheers,
Jamie.
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 07:35, Paul C. Bryan <pa...@forgerock.com> wrote:
> I've posted the third draft of the JSON Patch Internet-Draft to the
> IETF:
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pbryan-json-patch-02
>
> It should address all of the outstanding issues that have been raised to
> date. Your feedback is welcome.
>
> Paul
>
--
---
http://jamietalbot.com