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 <jasn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Robert Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Markus Lanthaler
>> <markus.lantha...@gmx.net> 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:jasn...@gmail.com]
>> > 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.lantha...@gmx.net> 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-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:apps-discuss-
>> > > boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of The IESG
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 4:01 PM
>> > > To: IETF-Announce
>> > > Cc: apps-disc...@ietf.org
>> > > 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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-12-25. Exceptionally, comments
>> may
>> > > be
>> > > sent to i...@ietf.org 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-disc...@ietf.org
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > apps-discuss mailing list
>> > apps-disc...@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > apps-discuss mailing list
>> > apps-disc...@ietf.org
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> apps-discuss mailing list
> apps-disc...@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
>
>
--
Matthew P. C. Morley
