Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Subject: Re: JSON Patch Internet Draft 01
From: "Paul C. Bryan" <paul.bryan@forgerock.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Cc: json-patch@googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikSYpmmvwoa5P_x76jGdwMtwA6A1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1307642964.1706.84.camel@dynamo>
	 <BANLkTimzR4JKJ6Jf7fEdRm2O2ZSVpor4Sw@mail.gmail.com>
	 <BANLkTikSYpmmvwoa5P_x76jGdwMtwA6A1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-FgZSkyWOkSgN+/TGUznv"
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 10:20:55 -0700
Message-ID: <1307726455.1706.111.camel@dynamo>
Mime-Version: 1.0

--=-FgZSkyWOkSgN+/TGUznv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 16:39 -0700, Eli Stevens (Gmail) wrote:

[snip]


> I think that it should be possible to specify what value should be
> present when removing something.  Text-based patches don't just say
> "remove line 42" they also spell out what content is expected to be
> there before removal.  Similarly, I think that supporting context
> verification is important.  Something like the following being applied
> to the resulting doc above:


I am inclined to leverage HTTP conditions (e.g. If-Match) to ensure
resource state rather than try to build additional tests and concurrency
mechanisms into the patch format.

[snip]


> For what it's worth, I don't think that using a list of strings for
> the pointer is bad at all.  Why invent a new string sub-syntax when
> you can use an existing JSON structure?  Having wasted more hours of
> my professional life lamenting trying to cram arbitrary user data into
> the path portion of a URL than I care to admit, I can't recommend the
> approach.  Spelling the separator as "," instead of / isn't that big
> of a deal, esp. when for simple cases with a full JS interpreter
> handy, one could use "/a/b/c".split("/").


There is a clear need for a scheme to identify a JSON node within a URI
fragment—this is what JSON Schema uses; I would rather leverage that
scheme than deviate from it and invent yet another for JSON Patch.

Paul

--=-FgZSkyWOkSgN+/TGUznv--