←back to thread

JSON Patch

(zuplo.com)
299 points DataOverload | 3 comments | 17 Oct 24 17:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.025s | source
Show context
hyperhello ◴[18 Oct 24 16:47 UTC] No.41881157[source]▶
What’s nice about JSON is that it’s actually valid JavaScript, with some formal specification to avoid any nasty circles or injections.

Why can’t your protocol just be valid JavaScript too? this.name = “string”; instead of mixing so many metaphors?

replies(2): >>41881202 #>>41881252 #
royjacobs ◴[18 Oct 24 16:52 UTC] No.41881202[source]▶
Because that would require consumers to have a Javascript interpreter to use it.
replies(1): >>41881260 #
moralestapia ◴[18 Oct 24 16:57 UTC] No.41881260[source]▶
Because that would require consumers to have an interpreter for the most widely deployed language, ever, and by far.

FTFY

replies(3): >>41881372 #>>41881376 #>>41881821 #
1. royjacobs ◴[18 Oct 24 17:54 UTC] No.41881821[source]▶
But what's your point? Would you truly want consumers of JSON Patch data to embed a JS interpreter?
replies(1): >>41881846 #
2. moralestapia ◴[18 Oct 24 17:56 UTC] No.41881846[source]▶
My point is that the JS interpreter is likely already there.
replies(1): >>41888517 #
3. _blk ◴[19 Oct 24 15:53 UTC] No.41888517[source]▶
only if you think of JSON in the context of a browser. JSON is used as serialized representation of objects in embedded systems, config files, etc. where a JS interpreter is unnecessary, absent or unwanted (size, security, platform preferences, ...)