Mailing-List: contact user-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of wanpeebaw@gmail.com designates
 209.85.215.52 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=cNagyolAuOQ3Mj5DD1QN6yq+xBZWMh7oxeWJvk1BWsC6N5ZgeLt4B9Uf6btKOGbVda
         PTQIOnM1cdqyK4ERAM1psHDOEWFt7fiGJEQ8WGguwh0nI4zuQ9D5EOE5/xodmBUoX8C4
         PN2W1gQz+RZ2ApsOBVkOnlQMYYFSpSNyvHCEU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinFZPEJCXjoJobyODuhednXtJ4QQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1303324273.25024.1301.camel@dynamo>
	<DC03AF2B-87DD-45E8-AFC8-1E4859C684A4@utt.fr>
	<BANLkTinG5wTtx+QVAdEq45V4L2EovCtUuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<ECCB220E-848C-480B-8B07-D8CAB23F63D5@utt.fr>
	<BANLkTinNnvkUh=9FkFxVQ+-aKuEzqTdnEQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinac8C5WARz_FQALeXwkG_9Q-5bNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTim=t+Vk-1dBQt1TMpq56e-sRWKCGQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTinFZPEJCXjoJobyODuhednXtJ4QQg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:35:03 +0800
Message-ID: <BANLkTin4zpXg3qm95NWOC=3E5qJ-pG16xw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: JSON-Patch
From: sleepnova <wanpeebaw@gmail.com>
To: user@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5b77f3fe17a04a1656d67

--001636c5b77f3fe17a04a1656d67
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Maybe it's viable to use different Content-Type to switch different state
transition formates. (PATCH or ACTION verb)

For example:
   patch
   json
   javascript

Each one has it's own advantages on describing state transfer.
For example, it's not easy to create or apply a text (or binary) patch with
in a browser environment.

2011/4/21 Paul Davis <paul.joseph.davis@gmail.com>

> Skimming RFC3284 it appears to be byte based which seems quite
> incompatible with couchdb internals.
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Robert Newson <robert.newson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > supporting RFC 3284 format for PUT has been proposed before, and it's
> generic.
> >
> > B.
> >
> > On 20 April 2011 21:55, sleepnova <wanpeebaw@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> A sudo patch for demonstration.
> >>
> >> if(doc._rev=3D=3D"07769cff70767095e4fb525dc9000b6e"){
> >>   //Put your patch here
> >> }
> >>
> >> I think above patch would be idempotent even when add or remove an arr=
ay
> >> element based on an index.
> >>
> >> 2011/4/21 sleepnova <wanpeebaw@gmail.com>
> >>
> >>> A patch which checks document version number might solve this problem=
.
> >>> similar to a git commit log
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2011/4/21 Aur=C3=A9lien B=C3=A9nel <aurelien.benel@utt.fr>
> >>>
> >>>> Dear Paul,
> >>>>
> >>>> > On the other hand, there's nothing inherently wrong with the PATCH
> verb
> >>>>
> >>>> True, PATCH could be idempotent... It just depends on your patch
> format.
> >>>>
> >>>> I just had a look at your patch operations specification:
> >>>> - When you add or remove a key/value, this is idempotent.
> >>>> - However, when you add or remove an array element based on an index=
,
> this
> >>>> is not.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Aur=C3=A9lien
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> - sleepnova
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> - sleepnova
> >>
> >
>


--=20
- sleepnova

--001636c5b77f3fe17a04a1656d67--