Mailing-List: contact oak-dev-help@jackrabbit.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of julian.reschke@gmx.de
 designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4F76B368.6000203@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:34:00 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: oak-dev@jackrabbit.apache.org
CC: Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisberg@gmail.com>,
 David Nuescheler <david.nuescheler@day.com>
Subject: Re: [Jackrabbit Wiki] Update of "Jsop" by JulianReschke
References: <20120323165121.52231.36040@eos.apache.org>
 <4F6CAD30.5050302@gmx.de>
 <CAFYk8Nk77aK1tErLTBk1pG5xSEEo2GS9i5VtJO3nUu_NBhm8cA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFYk8Nk77aK1tErLTBk1pG5xSEEo2GS9i5VtJO3nUu_NBhm8cA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2012-03-27 11:47, Stefan Guggisberg wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Julian Reschke<julian.reschke@gmx.de>  wrote:
>> I have updated the Wiki page with an IETF ABNF variant of the JSOP Diff
>> syntax.
>>
>> Open questions are:
>>
>> - JSON Patch (the IETF spec) allows set operations with objects; JSOP Diff
>> didn't need it yet (as it's for overwriting properties); we probably should
>> allow it in order to remove the mismatch (same for "test")
>
> agreed
>
>>
>> - are pointers escaped the same way as in JSON Pointers or not? As we do not
>> need "/" in names, we probably can get away without escaping, but then
>> JSOP-Diff wouldn't be able to express all JSON-Patch documents
>
> would that be a problem? if possible i'd rather keep it simple and not
> support the '^' escaping.

We just need to be aware of the issue/mismatch and document it. I'm ok 
with doing it this way.

> OTOH if it proofs to be a real iterop issue it might perhaps be worth
> the effort.

The question here is what needs to interop with that.

If this format is used purely inside Oak, we don't have to deal with it.

If this is positioned as a generic patch format for JSON, we do have to.

It would be good to finally decide on where we want to go with this format.

>>
>> - extensibility / metadata are not addressed yet
>>
>> As a next step we should document the mapping between these two formats
>> (while noting the remaining differences). That way we can define the
>> semantics of a JSOP-Diff instance in terms of JSON Patch, we should be on
>> the IETF Standards Track in the not-to distant future.
>
> +1, excellent!
>
> cheers
> stefan

Best regards, Julian