Subject: Re: [alto] JSON Patch vs. custom representation for incremental updates

From: Wendy Roome <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:54:29 -0400

Richard,

I'd love to hear how the JSON Patch designers expect JSON Patch to be
integrated into a JSON library. I have my guesses as to what such a
library would look like, and I know the problems I think that would have
with large ALTO cost & network maps, but I'll wait until I see whether
they come up with something better than I would have.

Of course, I hope you realize that it will be impossible to rigorously
prove that no one could *ever* design a JSON Patch library that works well
with large ALTO maps. :-) The best we can do is show that a given approach
has difficulty scaling up.

	- Wendy

It will be difficult to prove that no one can develop a good library for
JSON Patch. 

On 07/18/2014, 12:55, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>Before we draw the conclusion that JSON Patch mostly will add more work, I
>still prefer that it is more rigorously "proven" that it is hard to
>develop
>a good library for JSON Patch. I took the liberty of cc'ing the co-authors
>of JSON Patch, hoping that they may provide additional pointers.
>

---

From: "Y. Richard Yang" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 21:19:38 -0400

Wendy,

On Jul 19, 2014 2:54 AM, "Wendy Roome" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> library would look like,

I thought a bit how one might design an easy to use library as well. Agree
with you that it would be hard to "prove" :-） Let's wait to try to hear
from some JSON Patch experts. I want to distinguish two aspects: (1) first
easy to use, (2) then efficiency. These will be good challenges that we
post to this technique :-）

Always great post from you that is engaging and I learn much...

Richard

and I know the problems I think that would have
> _______________________________________________
> alto mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto