Hi Whether you use JSOP or RFC 6902 is essentially irrelevant. Maybe I tend to slightly favour a standardised approach hence RFC 6902.
Regards Felix > Am 26.01.2015 um 12:38 schrieb Francesco Mari <mari.france...@gmail.com>: > > My point is that probably you don't need to extend a format when the > format you are extending is already powerful enough to express what > you need. Other people already applied this concept successfully with > the creation of the JSON Patch standard [1]. > > [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902 > > 2015-01-26 12:21 GMT+01:00 Lukas Kahwe Smith <sm...@pooteeweet.org>: >> >>> On 26 Jan 2015, at 12:04, Francesco Mari <mari.france...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> The document I posted uses JSON only as a simple way to describe >>> generic data structures. There is a big disclaimer at the beginning of >>> "operations.md". The operations are supposed to be described in an >>> abstract way, without any procol-dependent technology. Please, let's >>> evaluate "operations.md" without thinking so much about JSON, JSOP or >>> other serialization strategies. >>> >>> That said, since the topic was brought up, I have to admit that I'm >>> not a big fan of JSOP. I don't see any benefit in that format, since >>> it doesn't really add anything that couldn't be done with plain JSON, >>> if I understand correctly. >> >> well that is the idea .. as its based on JSON :) >> it essentially extends JSON to specifically make it possible to express >> PATCH type requests in the context of a content repository. stuff like >> re-ordering etc. in that sense its also useful to handle the issue you talk >> about: dealing with multiple changes that you might have inside a remote >> session without needing a session, since you can do it all in a single >> request. >> >> regards, >> Lukas Kahwe Smith >> sm...@pooteeweet.org >> >> >>
