jackrabbit-oak-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Guggisberg <stefan.guggisb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [Jackrabbit Wiki] Update of "Jsop" by JulianReschke
Date Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:41:05 GMT
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

agreed. while i like the idea of JSOP diff becoming a generic patch format
for JSON i don't think that it's worth the extra headaches. on second thought
i am now convinced that we should not support JSON Pointer (i.e. the
escaping of forward slashes).

i imagine such paths could/will be used in URLs. paths like
"/foo/bar/yes^/no" would
certainly cause problems.

WDYT?

cheers
stefan

>
>
>>>
>>> - 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

Mime
View raw message