I'm not fond of that decision either.
Paul
On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 09:22 -0800, James M Snell wrote:
You are reading it correctly. Note also that the very next bullet
point says:
A member to add to an existing object - whereupon the supplied
value is added to that object at the indicated location. If the
member already exists, it is replaced by the specified value.
So an "add" is really a "replace" that does not have the "target
location MUST exist" restriction. Personally, I'm not too fond of that
decision. For anything other than an array, "add" should fail if the
target already exists. For arrays, "add" should insert but never
replace an existing value.
- James
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
> Abstract
> JSON Patch defines the media type
"application/json-patch", a JSON
> document structure for expressing a sequence of
operations to apply
> to a JSON document, suitable for use with the HTTP PATCH
method.
...
>
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-appsawg-json-patch/
I've reviewed JSON Patch and JSON Pointer as responsible AD,
and am
very happy with the documents -- this is good work, well
written. I
came up with one issue that I want to discuss as part of last
call:
4.1. add
The "add" operation adds a new value at the target
location. The
operation object MUST contain a "value" member that
specifies the
value to be added.
For example:
{ "op": "add", "path": "/a/b/c", "value": [ "foo",
"bar" ] }
When the operation is applied, the target location MUST
reference one
of:
o The root of the target document - whereupon the
specified value
becomes the entire content of the target document.
Now, what this means is that if we start with this:
{ "a": { "num": 1 } }
and we apply this:
{ "op": "add", "path": "", "value": [ "foo", "bar" ] }
we end up with this:
[ "foo", "bar" ]
This doesn't strike me as having any sense of an "add"
operation -- it
appears to be a special case that doesn't fit. In any other
situation, using any other path, the operation either adds
something
to what's already there, or it fails. But when the path is
"", it's
anomalous.
So, three questions:
1. Do I have this right, or am I mistaken about the result of
that operation?
2. Assuming I have it right, can someone explain why it's this
way?
3. Can someone explain why this is the right way to specify
it, rather
than using "replace" for this?
Barry
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss
_______________________________________________
apps-discuss mailing list
apps-discuss(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss