The cost of fixing it seems low, either by changing the path syntax of
JSON pointer or changing the names of operations applied to arrays.
Array-like objects are common enough in JavaScript to make this a
worry. The other suggestions either assume a particular policy for
concurrent edits or require more machinery (test operation etc).
Wouldn't it be simpler to make the patch format more precise?
- Rob
On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Morley <matt@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I am usually lurking and struggling to keep up with these posts. But, I
> concur with James, this really is a non-issue in practice.
>
> The JSON Pointer expresses a path down a JSON object to a specific context.
> The Patch expresses a change within or to that context.
> Everything about the both standards is about that end context.
>
> If you want to confirm the type of the context before applying a patch, this
> should probably be part of a test operation. I'm not sure if this is
> possible at this point (?), but that is where the logic should exist.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 12:22 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Robert Sayre <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Markus Lanthaler
>>> <markus.lanthaler@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hmm.. I think that’s quite problematic. Especially considering how JSON
>>> > Pointer is used in JSON Patch.
>>>
>>> I agree--I provided the same feedback privately. It seems
>>> straightforwardly unsound.
>>>
>>
>> In practice it doesn't seem to be much of an issue.
>>
>> Specifically, if I GET an existing document and get an etag with the JSON,
>> then make some changes and send a PATCH with If-Match, the fact that any
>> given pointer could point to an array or object member doesn't really matter
>> much.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> > GET /the/doc HTTP/1.1
>>
>> < HTTP/1.1 200 OK
>> ETag: "my-document-tag"
>> Content-Type: application/json
>>
>> {"1":"foo"}
>>
>> > PATCH /the/doc HTTP/1.1
>> If-Match: "my-document-etag"
>> Content-Type: application/json-patch
>>
>> [{"op":"add","path":"/2","value":"bar"}]
>>
>> Generally speaking, someone should not be using PATCH to perform a partial
>> modification if they don't already have some knowledge in advance what they
>> are modifying. The only time the apparent ambiguity becomes an issue is when
>> a client is blindly sending a patch to an unknown endpoint... in which case,
>> you get whatever you end up with.
>>
>> - James
>>
>>
>>>
>>> - Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > Markus Lanthaler
>>> >
>>> > @markuslanthaler
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@xxxxxxxxx]
>>> > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 5:41 PM
>>> > To: Markus Lanthaler
>>> > Cc: IETF Discussion; IETF Apps Discuss
>>> > Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Last Call:
>>> > <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > JSON Pointer does not distinguish between objects and arrays. That is
>>> > not determined until the pointer is applied to an actual object instance...
>>> > the pointer "/1" is valid against {"1":"a"} or ["a","b"]
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Markus Lanthaler
>>> > <markus.lanthaler@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I've asked that before but didn't get an answer. So let me ask again
>>> > (even
>>> > though I'm quite sure it has already been asked by somebody else).
>>> >
>>> > How does JSON Pointer distinguish between objects and arrays? E.g.
>>> > consider
>>> > the following JSON document:
>>> >
>>> > {
>>> > "foo": "bar",
>>> > "1": "baz"
>>> > }
>>> >
>>> > As I read the draft, the JSON Pointer "/1" would evaluate to "baz" even
>>> > though that's probably not what the author intended. Is there a way to
>>> > avoid
>>> > that?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> > Markus
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Markus Lanthaler
>>> > @markuslanthaler
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > > -----Original Message-----
>>> > > From: apps-discuss-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:apps-discuss-
>>> > > bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of The IESG
>>> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:01 PM
>>> > > To: IETF-Announce
>>> > > Cc: apps-discuss@xxxxxxxx
>>> > > Subject: [apps-discuss] Last Call: <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-
>>> > > 07.txt> (JSON Pointer) to Proposed Standard
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > The IESG has received a request from the Applications Area Working
>>> > > Group
>>> > > WG (appsawg) to consider the following document:
>>> > > - 'JSON Pointer'
>>> > > <draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer-07.txt> as Proposed Standard
>>> > >
>>> > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
>>> > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
>>> > > the
>>> > > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2012-12-25. Exceptionally, comments
>>> > > may
>>> > > be
>>> > > sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the
>>> > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>>> > >
>>> > > Abstract
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > JSON Pointer defines a string syntax for identifying a specific
>>> > > value
>>> > > within a JSON document.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > The file can be obtained via
>>> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/
>>> > >
>>> > > IESG discussion can be tracked via
>>> > >
>>> > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-pointer/ballot/
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > apps-discuss mailing list
>>> > > apps-discuss@xxxxxxxx
>>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > apps-discuss mailing list
>>> > apps-discuss@xxxxxxxx
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > apps-discuss mailing list
>>> > apps-discuss@xxxxxxxx
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apps-discuss mailing list
>> apps-discuss@xxxxxxxx
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthew P. C. Morley