From nobody Tue Aug 11 09:18:10 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E733A115C for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:18:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ispirata.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id K7ZwGZ8ii8Kb for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:18:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32F633A1162 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:18:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id g75so2951571wme.4 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:18:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ispirata.com; s=google; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=O0t3lw+b25Ar2VZqhIAB2D747Rf5htCRNkB+4klwjNo=; b=PGp45UPodzPRLcJ/itMOgXGL22bwDkWYl10iIz+wD+x95DorXo6P54s+/aU4ij3K3m DgK1KeVoFVeoOtvV8sH6+u8YKkjKu/EF43LRZuyA25nBkCu3PiHvjohlb5W4e5wbjXgR g9cGLjRmg0k8ahDSI24wHvj5YonKXay3ZTbTXyAvZw6P+1CYqPoA+AHQfmassYYM2BZT sZZn288xni/abg+lG3r4qB4sz5X7bOUvHOk7WosW8YuXPXCA3KvoiyTyGYH5GWssd/O5 zb1FuU37mDCaDSsfBZ2HWC/RBKM6n3lup4F43S7aiKvQ4sDwAm3llr5IRPzLqLwT9HUQ 3L+g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=O0t3lw+b25Ar2VZqhIAB2D747Rf5htCRNkB+4klwjNo=; b=Y0oSRfoajxbPRE19lo2pYkzUOPC7mK/4EHvC5IBGKkZ347f8PipP+xftvGy5Tk5Jys Ws8rjzDfgdEL++OmAoHvHkTEHFlq83HbBDfYejifs2RkGfsSc0Y8GFfsZpJE5p/lpctk 0WETA1hiIHeuCOIHKkWaJUdpk2TSSabu52Z9tjIv2XI+eUdKKvjb4+T4/t3n6YZPv0vd a5kwuTmUsJ6/ShoDvm/sL0zXpj9eB45EobCtVl0S87GxlJHbc+dQyEt1uQSYLDqE5wuc vADeQECp2HyIUTyIfsx5pbyfZd0cRNWsUw2jkISzF2l7yypKNyCd0/BUYiUZeHKMgxpZ w+MQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5325PICPMG7KsQCUByMFfR8VbQFnmMJKIEwGKlqfDY8Z5jH4kis6 eNPWkCoYdfzIpvNkzt7+m1dz+01iZ1PR1dCCYoSygdy4gRc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZ5F0a9b85RApysJOD1jhYiTZUHyFozt6o2zU6oozIWJo7jzjL7r/k8mBjYxEP0EH8Dc05YZxisp1iRd9yL/U= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:66c5:: with SMTP id a188mr4516306wmc.173.1597162682305; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:18:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Davide Bettio Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:17:26 +0200 Message-ID: To: jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:18:09 -0000 Hello, Darrel Miller on dispatch@ietf.org started a "JSONPath or JMESPath" thread, I think we should take a decision on this topic before making any other decision. If we go for JMESPath, discussing JSONPath here would be useless, so can we prioritise this topic? Regards, Davide Bettio. From nobody Tue Aug 11 09:30:15 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00EEB3A040F for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DFrfu4kPSlIW for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EEBA3A044E for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 09:30:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.116] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BQyww5zCzzyxm; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:30:08 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 18:30:08 +0200 Cc: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618856208.175825-d87099d623c0f787e8687aefa6073ee4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Davide Bettio X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:30:14 -0000 On 2020-08-11, at 18:17, Davide Bettio = wrote: >=20 > Hello, >=20 > Darrel Miller on dispatch@ietf.org started a "JSONPath or JMESPath" > thread, Right, please find (and read) the thread here: = https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/FoCwaHJVIqJP78GdHT-IaDH32ks= / The reasons he gave for choosing JMESPath are exactly the ones that made = me propose the activity this mailing list has been created for. > I think we should take a decision on this topic before making > any other decision. It is a bit outside the scope, as this mailing list was created for = standardizing JSONPath, but we certainly don=E2=80=99t want to expend = the effort for that if JMESPath is already the solution. I can=E2=80=99t reach https://www.jmespath.org/ at the moment, so=20 > If we go for JMESPath, discussing JSONPath here would be useless, so > can we prioritise this topic? Sure. So what are the advantages of JMESPath over JSONPath that are not = about what we=E2=80=99ve set out to do here? Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Tue Aug 11 10:22:44 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CB83A0847 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:22:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.093 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.093 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dilettant.eu Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9HG18boMSEFN for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailrelay1-3.pub.mailoutpod1-cph3.one.com (mailrelay1-3.pub.mailoutpod1-cph3.one.com [46.30.212.10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 421013A081D for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dilettant.eu; s=20191106; h=to:references:message-id:date:cc:in-reply-to:from:mime-version:subject: content-transfer-encoding:content-type:from; bh=6iHH9Zl8nddk9ib+D352FXHU5dtYBNcyuXi8yARBP+Y=; b=lBWa3yDqylFQUxkeQXkJY+329rYNWnSW1bXWAW6dJWJOH0RMBN9yB7Z4d1a7VjlUCxsBsmY+uBIhY jsaPhgKKNl5nx6ZW/jzi88Eb0d1CVwrpvnLQtI5m5G8wrbVRrrHytyR6QwKvR7PjASjJ7n3pqVLHAk bFC1YorrYstvPa0DYRLt+LVryWOhLdDj00XVZfXj4dXwm7t0XA/h3BfY5/kuuK2O1QLR+LraoVxbbw rLCCZa35NATMqog7sRWpJfED0wT0pvX9iQl1iXYnmJ50bTyZtziEyb16rxJhgB7wp1A5xc8OgFnHTA R/W54X5aP654qpcaAQhWj0JL7iAfEsg== X-HalOne-Cookie: b7e6199561478eeb49c7ccb03653737472a295c3 X-HalOne-ID: 3fe07239-dbf7-11ea-b2e9-d0431ea8a283 Received: from [IPv6:2a02:1206:4533:5140:7984:dc33:8aaa:e170] (unknown [2a02:1206:4533:5140:7984:dc33:8aaa:e170]) by mailrelay1.pub.mailoutpod1-cph3.one.com (Halon) with ESMTPSA id 3fe07239-dbf7-11ea-b2e9-d0431ea8a283; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:22:36 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-7B43704D-4632-4215-AD0F-E889EE3F9557 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Apple-Notify-Thread: NO X-Universally-Unique-Identifier: 67CAFF55-549D-47F7-8198-1847ED78E4DB From: Stefan Hagen In-Reply-To: Cc: Davide Bettio , jsonpath@ietf.org Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:22:36 +0200 X-Apple-Message-Smime-Encrypt: NO Message-Id: References: To: Carsten Bormann X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17G68) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:22:43 -0000 --Apple-Mail-7B43704D-4632-4215-AD0F-E889EE3F9557 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Am 11.08.2020 um 18:30 schrieb Carsten Bormann : >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn 2020-08-11, at 18:17, Davide Bettio wrote: >>=20 >> Hello, >>=20 >> Darrel Miller on dispatch@ietf.org started a "JSONPath or JMESPath" >> thread, >=20 > Right, please find (and read) the thread here: >=20 > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/FoCwaHJVIqJP78GdHT-IaDH32ks= / >=20 > The reasons he gave for choosing JMESPath are exactly the ones that made m= e propose the activity this mailing list has been created for. >=20 >> I think we should take a decision on this topic before making >> any other decision. >=20 > It is a bit outside the scope, as this mailing list was created for standa= rdizing JSONPath, but we certainly don=E2=80=99t want to expend the effort f= or that if JMESPath is already the solution. > I can=E2=80=99t reach https://www.jmespath.org/ at the moment, so=20 Try without the www: https://jmespath.org/ works for me while the above URL d= oes not. Or one can start from pypi or https://github.com/jmespath/jmespath.= py >=20 >> If we go for JMESPath, discussing JSONPath here would be useless, so >> can we prioritise this topic? >=20 > Sure. So what are the advantages of JMESPath over JSONPath that are not a= bout what we=E2=80=99ve set out to do here? >=20 > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten >=20 > --=20 > Jsonpath mailing list > Jsonpath@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath Best, Stefan= --Apple-Mail-7B43704D-4632-4215-AD0F-E889EE3F9557 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Am 11.08.2020 um 18:30 schrieb Carsten Bormann &l= t;cabo@tzi.org>:

=EF=BB=BFOn 2020-08-11, at 18:17, Davide Bettio <david= e.bettio@ispirata.com> wrote:
<= /span>
Hello,

Darrel Miller on dispatch@ietf.org started a "JSONPath o= r JMESPath"
thread,

Right, please find (and read) t= he thread here:

https://mailarchive.ietf.or= g/arch/msg/dispatch/FoCwaHJVIqJP78GdHT-IaDH32ks/

= The reasons he gave for choosing JMESPath are exactly the ones that ma= de me propose the activity this mailing list has been created for.
I think we should take a d= ecision on this topic before making
any other decision.

It is a bit outside the scope, as this mailing list was created for stand= ardizing JSONPath, but we certainly don=E2=80=99t want to expend the effort f= or that if JMESPath is already the solution.
I can=E2=80=99t= reach https://www.jmespath.org/ at the moment, so

Try without the www: https://jmespath.org/ works for me while the above URL does not= . Or one can start from pypi or https://github.com/jmespath/jmespath.py


<= span>If we go for JMESPath, discussing JSONPath here would be useless, so
can we prioritise this t= opic?

Sure.  So what are t= he advantages of JMESPath over JSONPath that are not about what we=E2=80=99v= e set out to do here?

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Cars= ten

--
Jsonpath mailing li= st
Jsonpath@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/ma= ilman/listinfo/jsonpath

Best,
Stefan
= --Apple-Mail-7B43704D-4632-4215-AD0F-E889EE3F9557-- From nobody Tue Aug 11 10:45:42 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E610C3A0598 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:45:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M8wc8v8p8j5X for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98BCC3A03FC for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id g6so14447122ljn.11 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:45:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=I+52LZUOgjvPVJD61PxpYiojsUAb3HPhBfUL6S0KWIw=; b=CCy1mzT6q43sH46ulsJBOGdSvFwgAwBN+r8fTJaJIQak+W0T8PkCky7Jih+sdy96cA v4CJPn6WUPlSEdVpu1g7ebXwTCG/S/KaCmi3+2qT96yFxcs1eXAuvoiAsOQO+BZ3BX56 i9CP1PUPiAx0njooLsgu9fSJAlZ16HEFSQ94QTyyIZGw32a00dP14t3MadVQ1x6FHHsc vukbhWAp4bCVHNoE1vNNJnKwfkww7cCDf9yF2bx/i+xaLPWmRwiOJ2G+seN5Ipn/SpGD mOnax6PQ1ruHX1+hqHwZg+Eoh47pPTEWlrjq/fpRqsYRo2fypUv3+R3IMtXqQbN4zQaO zVtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=I+52LZUOgjvPVJD61PxpYiojsUAb3HPhBfUL6S0KWIw=; b=FfbdRYQabvyFWGwKHHNY/lUd0Hjnw5y8O1YUgae7o9uvoRFWoaldLUcTMx4k2S8/Wc Tf3qg2kK737hWv4pMNuS+ZhO6CjnCK4nY0ZXWRK/xFbR0uNNRv7alBgTGdE9vdon80bg 3obE4mAPYqHj/uQxRqdSin9D+/bHikpwqoqSQLf954mQwl8QJvki4LmaBsqgMn5fZol5 UHWMNCsTA/9cXg6dmCtG6IWlm40oAQT29bOPC3MNqnmlC32yZ6KEgIR+PhQRik0OqO0c CUY3gwh/fHIuirDFvfSMWG/USeYXHnOlWNPE25pNZDiFe5dji9A7+PvbgnRxv5wBi4ix ZXUw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307RpS9PUEWqlR76+s1cN6zqsZcsqGDUE0kzkC0WeO3jfm13Jng WVI/juSxSIOTzfoObQn7cuFa/A7F3I8UInEjwzjBhw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxP/7s/dOUHFINANm8e85VVrlAdrMuXZ4AzmfN1XKEkcvRBWDftP/oZ/gbhF+F5E6v1M5Ix9zI5HnBjXHlnlHY= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:284:: with SMTP id b4mr3558796ljo.278.1597167934837; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:45:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Tim Bray Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:45:23 -0700 Message-ID: To: Stefan Hagen Cc: Carsten Bormann , Davide Bettio , jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000672fea05ac9da34b" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:45:41 -0000 --000000000000672fea05ac9da34b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sounds like JMESPath is already reasonably well-defined. JSONPath isn't. JSONPath is widely adopted and in my most recent job, lack of a standardized definition was a real problem. So it sounds to me like there's more value for the IETF to add with JSONPath. On Tue., Aug. 11, 2020, 10:22 a.m. Stefan Hagen, wrote: > > Am 11.08.2020 um 18:30 schrieb Carsten Bormann : > > =EF=BB=BFOn 2020-08-11, at 18:17, Davide Bettio > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > Darrel Miller on dispatch@ietf.org started a "JSONPath or JMESPath" > > thread, > > > Right, please find (and read) the thread here: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/FoCwaHJVIqJP78GdHT-IaDH32k= s/ > > The reasons he gave for choosing JMESPath are exactly the ones that made > me propose the activity this mailing list has been created for. > > I think we should take a decision on this topic before making > > any other decision. > > > It is a bit outside the scope, as this mailing list was created for > standardizing JSONPath, but we certainly don=E2=80=99t want to expend the= effort > for that if JMESPath is already the solution. > I can=E2=80=99t reach https://www.jmespath.org/ at the moment, so > > > Try without the www: https://jmespath.org/ works for me while the above > URL does not.. Or one can start from pypi or > https://github.com/jmespath/jmespath.py > > > If we go for JMESPath, discussing JSONPath here would be useless, so > > can we prioritise this topic? > > > Sure. So what are the advantages of JMESPath over JSONPath that are not > about what we=E2=80=99ve set out to do here? > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > -- > Jsonpath mailing list > Jsonpath@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath > > > Best, > Stefan > -- > Jsonpath mailing list > Jsonpath@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath > --000000000000672fea05ac9da34b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sounds like JMESPath is already reasonably well-defined. JS= ONPath isn't. JSONPath is widely adopted and in my most recent job, lac= k of a standardized definition was a real problem. So it sounds to me like = there's more value for the IETF to add with JSONPath.

On Tu= e., Aug. 11, 2020, 10:22 a.m. Stefan Hagen, <stefan@dilettant.eu> wrote:
<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);pa= dding-left:1ex">

Am 11.08.2020 um 18:30 schrieb Carsten Bormann= <c= abo@tzi.org>:

=EF=BB=BFOn 2020-08-11, at 18:17, Davide Bettio <davide.bettio@ispirata.com> wrote:

Hel= lo,

Darrel Miller on dispatch@ietf.org started a "JSONPath or JMESPath"
thread,

<= span>Right, please find (and read) the thread here:
=
https://mailarc= hive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/FoCwaHJVIqJP78GdHT-IaDH32ks/
=
The reasons he gave for choosing JMESPath are exactl= y the ones that made me propose the activity this mailing list has been cre= ated for.

I thin= k we should take a decision on this topic before making
any other decision.

It is a bit outside the scope, as this mailing l= ist was created for standardizing JSONPath, but we certainly don=E2=80=99t = want to expend the effort for that if JMESPath is already the solution.
I can=E2=80=99t reach https://www.jmespath.org/ at the mom= ent, so

Try without the www:= =C2=A0https://jmespath.org/=C2=A0works for me while the above URL does not.= . Or one can start from pypi or=C2=A0https://github.com/jmesp= ath/jmespath.py


If we go for JMESPath, discuss= ing JSONPath here would be useless, so
can we prioritise this topic?

Sure.=C2=A0 So what are the advantages of JMESPath over= JSONPath that are not about what we=E2=80=99ve set out to do here?<= br>
Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten
<= br>--
Jsonpath mailing list
Jsonpath= @ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mai= lman/listinfo/jsonpath

Best= ,
Stefan
--
Jsonpath mailing list
J= sonpath@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonp= ath
--000000000000672fea05ac9da34b-- From nobody Tue Aug 11 12:56:18 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1DE3A0C29 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:56:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j6TBBSmt25rC for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B58B3A0C18 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:56:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id l2so12598396wrc.7 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:56:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=JFJGTfrWGWQ7EYZyHE18rRQmmST2EoeBPPScv3X0qlg=; b=et7MGuN3iZ48fl0NAgWPT9jmG9d5EyuZh8bEeDYL391nvY8mKcczX7agKQPmCHlEmY ugTMAWlB9l/OQ+OnNTHlPUtDcwXpe1Lqicsb0VQG/Sry0MENz1vYimvoYy77EpaiCuYJ 1ylkjjyasT9DZgoOlpGJi+lOSwj8T8yvuoXBw+WRCGdOZNVUEwAqLlLugHq3T2ze8zOw w8LZoGbLQbi2nostwAKCEXL195UGrKozuRByFdZRfVXUq6PDavz5djY/V8EbdSSU/AyB 19tArnHhrPs6c7d3tdFjqs1lAQHeEuyDAux76AC3z91tyONiFnG0q9XBQN4tOQ+CX+M6 60PA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=JFJGTfrWGWQ7EYZyHE18rRQmmST2EoeBPPScv3X0qlg=; b=UJkGGMQCCz/PI5LRpUM2wIaDECPzDo/Z6oi4iKATWxp4uA53N0GWRV+y6XmdHyk+X+ tBJcgbuYbUAtoWGz7zjQktb4uBjEmvUdgVqJqIMbiHgtV1/fUTeHMEWzfOEjYzhadZzI ++0+BamDF6GhVaC5ArfVKdWF6VYO2+bVh0ByDkv/an2F+uaUSp/AbO1lYXCEfjyPy/2C Ek0uTv8m0E9BPf6J/jl+WKxBCm7kDWdcqUWCj9C6UW0XV015KjTaYqbzEcEy5pY9kHEs PtXfO0+Xlh2MPD4ePkUQk87ExCW1vYPua9wHkvRCzu+fCfd3UWabU3oqE7IEYRItLs9z awYw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530eSiHRHYa4UdO9XRXn9fx19ZLIwqo/OWfsMSdn/uSUo8VYrHz7 V74ZipB+0NsdT5+fJ97wNhgfBtvWWnNMFLLFYHPZVdGB4N8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwFe2dH6QN4yMaQyNiBsMko2hGC2P1QMqH3cXn4P8IiQ7SPiUcCETqtZ482TuZuhlXt5S7Z0P5AnvClwFOf6g0= X-Received: by 2002:adf:9ed4:: with SMTP id b20mr30681784wrf.206.1597175772598; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 12:56:12 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Daniel P Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:56:00 -0400 Message-ID: To: jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] Jsonpath Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:56:18 -0000 > From: Tim Bray > To: Stefan Hagen > Cc: Carsten Bormann , Davide Bettio , jsonpath@ietf.org > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 10:45:23 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath > Sounds like JMESPath is already reasonably well-defined. JSONPath isn't. JSONPath is widely adopted > and in my most recent job, lack of a standardized definition was a real problem. So it sounds to me like > there's more value for the IETF to add with JSONPath. > Note that there is an emerging ISO SQL/JSON standard for JSONPath that appears to have the backing of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle, cf. https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c067367_ISO_IEC_TR_19075-6_2017.zip It seems to me that a separate standardization effort would need to take this work into account and be compatible with it, to have broad acceptance. Daniel From nobody Tue Aug 11 15:06:54 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA6B3A0D4F for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:06:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Nq-5G-H3x1q7 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA10A3A0D47 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.116] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BR6PL6ZCWz100y; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:06:46 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:06:46 +0200 Cc: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618876406.275476-70e583e1d25d709e1b0027f6af947996 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: Daniel P X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] Jsonpath Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:06:52 -0000 On 2020-08-11, at 21:56, Daniel P wrote: >=20 > Note that there is an emerging ISO SQL/JSON standard for JSONPath that > appears to have > the backing of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle, cf. > = https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c067367_ISO_IEC_= TR_19075-6_2017.zip This is a TR, but it contains a lot of useful material. Lots of = examples! > It seems to me that a separate standardization effort would need to > take this work into account Definitely! Thank you for the pointer. > and be > compatible with it, to have broad acceptance. For a definition of compatible. For instance, I would like to learn = more about actual usage of the =E2=80=9Cstrict mode=E2=80=9D (*). Also, = it is not clear to me that using SQL as the underlying model will work = well for all applications. But that is exactly what we need to discuss = in more detail! The question right now is what should be written up in the charter. = Unless there is a potential for a WG lockup that can only be avoided by = making a selection at WG chartering time, I generally prefer to have the = WG make the decisions based on its ongoing work, instead of guessing = these decisions at chartering time based on more incomplete information. Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten (*) My mental model at the moment is that a JSONPath expression can be = valid or erroneous; application of a valid expression yields a result = (which may be empty), but does not raise errors. That may not be the = right model for all applications. From nobody Tue Aug 11 15:12:36 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2993A0B41 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:12:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cRDYV6nrnPHa for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lf1-x12d.google.com (mail-lf1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2532D3A0B34 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id m15so89879lfp.7 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:12:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=textuality-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=YIc7LS9WjwS/ZJW82830sd/s7PTjGVOUxHGQxS3MORU=; b=bPQyyOyUisq1PmX1GGu8ZU1iYNk9XagWvHML9aPoyWnUI1qIIN6bqERL8xOAGa5vqn J3v5DG43x4Qa+m4PTgBogvfZvVW09x+WH/rje6BwH3BRrgH5Mg+QFC3Q0oFzuEFODgbZ XbIzOEo5zN1ogKaXvVSnLFJxYuJltmr1hkCNsnym/ewa03WbdxnUaI6dyjOK5hUk5JHJ pnvNYkhIrT5ayZOumJh+WZV3JyJE8cIDleIKv0KufooA66wo1wxBLVTqH3GN55JDlLx7 u1IxscXcQj5Y24ObE7AE8IoYeII/f1ud0Ty1sB5/jKwf95X4XSdOByjOxjMPN03sLxUa KhBg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YIc7LS9WjwS/ZJW82830sd/s7PTjGVOUxHGQxS3MORU=; b=T23N/nKLrfkcWPCUckLq/3EUtEFNLol66J5CHqUStOQjP3PmgjNSC9WNyUCQRzG1it y/wnvarIpEJxC8uo24KBZLgZAh9NLf7FurkZqTsv1UaJ+IHeldPW+97M9QUopyQgGScu G2nY4n/aHcJ13DCMhPPxFl21e4x9faPGN1vNoye/myY3/RkelNqEnVqxTsp1i4A4vYUD jYoz2Xg/QPSrQhz23EOBCYE4e4uKpLy9gCLWvyzzsVKchINlBZUGL76A/5+EhAOApXFd iA+TEN8Z/+fSR9K7KOue4BfBnlrSIy67N2Z4T2aNkvK3yccVmaelPlU7f+7cC0VScRX4 ZRHA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531PgAsgVhyxWo2hIkhq/cZUQiWDQOXQ+jszcrNF3bivi7foAXwT 4QpqRvPJp49AvprDkegbPnDjem2LFOGC0ttR07ltOXSn0qH1Bg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyr7I57XD2tGBORknRzCNqd4HKA6U9KPPSsC/OYwGITL/FPscPmWTIpQ6cWNwy6suiBrClAvsYF4t5sNULPykM= X-Received: by 2002:a19:c206:: with SMTP id l6mr4096476lfc.152.1597183950199; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:12:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Tim Bray Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:12:19 -0700 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: Daniel P , jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fe266305aca15da3" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] Jsonpath Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:12:35 -0000 --000000000000fe266305aca15da3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Is there a draft charter? I don't recall seeing one go by but maybe I missed it. If not, I can make a first draft. On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 3:06 PM Carsten Bormann wrote: > On 2020-08-11, at 21:56, Daniel P wrote: > > > > Note that there is an emerging ISO SQL/JSON standard for JSONPath that > > appears to have > > the backing of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle, cf. > > > https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c067367_ISO_IEC= _TR_19075-6_2017.zip > > This is a TR, but it contains a lot of useful material. Lots of examples= ! > > > It seems to me that a separate standardization effort would need to > > take this work into account > > Definitely! Thank you for the pointer. > > > and be > > compatible with it, to have broad acceptance. > > For a definition of compatible. For instance, I would like to learn more > about actual usage of the =E2=80=9Cstrict mode=E2=80=9D (*). Also, it is= not clear to me > that using SQL as the underlying model will work well for all > applications. But that is exactly what we need to discuss in more detail= ! > > The question right now is what should be written up in the charter. > Unless there is a potential for a WG lockup that can only be avoided by > making a selection at WG chartering time, I generally prefer to have the = WG > make the decisions based on its ongoing work, instead of guessing these > decisions at chartering time based on more incomplete information. > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > (*) My mental model at the moment is that a JSONPath expression can be > valid or erroneous; application of a valid expression yields a result > (which may be empty), but does not raise errors. That may not be the rig= ht > model for all applications. > > -- > Jsonpath mailing list > Jsonpath@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath > --000000000000fe266305aca15da3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Is = there a draft charter?=C2=A0 I don't recall seeing one go by but maybe = I missed it.=C2=A0 If not, I can make a first draft.

On Tue, Aug 11, 2= 020 at 3:06 PM Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi= .org> wrote:
On 2020-08-11, at 21:56, Dani= el P <danie= laparker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Note that there is an emerging ISO SQL/JSON standard for JSONPath that=
> appears to have
> the backing of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle, cf.
> ht= tps://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c067367_ISO_IEC_TR_= 19075-6_2017.zip

This is a TR, but it contains a lot of useful material.=C2=A0 Lots of examp= les!

> It seems to me that a separate standardization effort would need to > take this work into account

Definitely!=C2=A0 Thank you for the pointer.

> and be
> compatible with it, to have broad acceptance.

For a definition of compatible.=C2=A0 For instance, I would like to learn m= ore about actual usage of the =E2=80=9Cstrict mode=E2=80=9D (*).=C2=A0 Also= , it is not clear to me that using SQL as the underlying model will work we= ll for all applications.=C2=A0 But that is exactly what we need to discuss = in more detail!

The question right now is what should be written up in the charter.=C2=A0 U= nless there is a potential for a WG lockup that can only be avoided by maki= ng a selection at WG chartering time, I generally prefer to have the WG mak= e the decisions based on its ongoing work, instead of guessing these decisi= ons at chartering time based on more incomplete information.

Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten

(*) My mental model at the moment is that a JSONPath expression can be vali= d or erroneous; application of a valid expression yields a result (which ma= y be empty), but does not raise errors.=C2=A0 That may not be the right mod= el for all applications.

--
Jsonpath mailing list
Jsonpath@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath
--000000000000fe266305aca15da3-- From nobody Tue Aug 11 15:21:02 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F5C3A0D47 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:21:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.897 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jrKP9yFFzRTl for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:20:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 294C63A0C87 for ; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 15:20:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.217.116] (p5089ae91.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.174.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4BR6jg37vkz1018; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:20:55 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\)) From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 00:20:54 +0200 Cc: jsonpath@ietf.org, Daniel P X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 618877254.555162-5b1f2b3f68f0d7aeb28824d8b8e78c22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <22C87C6B-F7FB-4074-8EEF-118AA28AB61B@tzi.org> References: To: Tim Bray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] Jsonpath Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 22:21:00 -0000 On 2020-08-12, at 00:12, Tim Bray wrote: >=20 > Is there a draft charter? =20 Not yet. I thought we might have a little bit of discussion to find out = where the different point of views might be lying. > I don't recall seeing one go by but maybe I missed it. If not, I can = make a first draft. That would be great! Since github organizations are cheap, I created one, with a repository = that you could use: https://github.com/jsonpath-wg/charter Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten From nobody Wed Aug 12 03:15:25 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E1A3A11D6 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:15:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ispirata.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZ4gi-HcaHCK for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com (mail-wm1-x332.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79B763A0F46 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id g75so1392889wme.4 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:15:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ispirata.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cqh4MqVZhtN+HjaVigV72g/zA7BZJvUTp2Rt0XMnmDI=; b=F/2VIotqslbMHq7mnEnqoAVHTPdyxNgaTWCZpOQrHfzeV5FiWY8XL/zw7sWePn1FAr NRL2iujjji0H4dAm9A7BukJrf7riOya5JF3llFbT8aPVIg96H4EGhPHD009mhnJesrwD 0Hk7rU1Cc8VhtYxbGR/z8iHUj1SHJTyYnCqUPZlVymC0Rvtz9lWgSBBivsDBYQRZVxXO NTVK48NDOECpf21cBM+qH0vBA2aoGKAGvqsFE5WaQoQaO+LesXB/AyhBteS+DTjW3JHq Th//whh33aJNoYTG1rFRrUA7siki7I4fBkOTfVq49wWYSQ0u5pCtFzEtlXZfg4J+4xCC g+aQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cqh4MqVZhtN+HjaVigV72g/zA7BZJvUTp2Rt0XMnmDI=; b=ik8SEn6SYUOqdjEWCLCmjX3cOCRBqYvZGO9wr1ydgE9H3SXp0IG0JAhkAzcUqJQQcO XeHxJ/zSZdA4bfpAbkmilo81KkdZAYqhUO59YBfZqo9iN5yydY23bwFtNDO87u6ic4r7 sRyPt5u2Iv6IgOGgZFNkDp76oG13R8GzKIc9WsZkro3xRtCvCYSXY1VzbCoehPYviiaA dYzwRXnOIFtiDqdIo/8yzdHFBbWo29D8cpTrO7j8CG+Yw6MC5pMxNjmiADJVeDhxcWUc A0uxeurSoQlg0es8kxNV+ZQHWj9FAG8iqZV3Aoe5oBGyTuXbE+OH7m+a6mZaFLzPdv3l wWpw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531oDK1wJklO8Tx9O7oQuBOjwI7ZmeL0fkzrGOmbAZRavkNbrdtF g1Llbx6omgtG9Z4uFUXWxhAa+o6/Fd1ZZ4iyxsX86g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwQEX0ZTGXC0XSN4w5Amf55QUbLZuuNeNqzstKo2D7UzV8SVNXi3ATHXKJpB0exETkom5XJGArm595Svex6oV8= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:66c5:: with SMTP id a188mr7681064wmc.173.1597227320298; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:15:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Davide Bettio Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:14:44 +0200 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: Daniel P , jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] Jsonpath Digest, Vol 2, Issue 1 X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 10:15:24 -0000 Hello, > (*) My mental model at the moment is that a JSONPath expression can be va= lid or erroneous; application of a valid expression yields a result (which = may be empty), but does not raise errors. That may not be the right model = for all applications. The general approach that I've seen several times (including my Elixir implementation) is that an error is raised when there is a syntax error, therefore an invalid expression (e.g. $.foo[[5]) raises an error. Conversely a valid expression applied to a bogus input never raises an error (e.g. $.foo.bar on "test" evals as []). Regards, Davide Bettio. Il giorno mer 12 ago 2020 alle ore 00:06 Carsten Bormann ha scritto: > > On 2020-08-11, at 21:56, Daniel P wrote: > > > > Note that there is an emerging ISO SQL/JSON standard for JSONPath that > > appears to have > > the backing of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Oracle, cf. > > https://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/c067367_ISO_I= EC_TR_19075-6_2017.zip > > This is a TR, but it contains a lot of useful material. Lots of examples= ! > > > It seems to me that a separate standardization effort would need to > > take this work into account > > Definitely! Thank you for the pointer. > > > and be > > compatible with it, to have broad acceptance. > > For a definition of compatible. For instance, I would like to learn more= about actual usage of the =E2=80=9Cstrict mode=E2=80=9D (*). Also, it is = not clear to me that using SQL as the underlying model will work well for a= ll applications. But that is exactly what we need to discuss in more detai= l! > > The question right now is what should be written up in the charter. Unle= ss there is a potential for a WG lockup that can only be avoided by making = a selection at WG chartering time, I generally prefer to have the WG make t= he decisions based on its ongoing work, instead of guessing these decisions= at chartering time based on more incomplete information. > > Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe, Carsten > > (*) My mental model at the moment is that a JSONPath expression can be va= lid or erroneous; application of a valid expression yields a result (which = may be empty), but does not raise errors. That may not be the right model = for all applications. > > -- > Jsonpath mailing list > Jsonpath@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsonpath From nobody Wed Aug 12 03:57:35 2020 Return-Path: X-Original-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: jsonpath@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8473A1218 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:57:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=ispirata.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4B3M9NaL2-8P for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 811583A1216 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:57:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id c19so3975880wmd.1 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:57:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ispirata.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=31j0x/MoA0jVO0KAbVwnxEWmPu5woQ0ennY+Vj1n9CM=; b=BYi1lUZMCSJ2CuzIcatpGfXn66tlUUxm8dnrL5Cf+7C2bZwlAc9ETuRMJ+b1OFTS2H BXE+y4UIYHZx4+RI6/i2hPzvfIeY3uxAXGWxCptUQOSoGrq1UbM1qM9YFUVEKj3Dzg6c 1Y+gD+1P9ug1jGTU4EPTjrWZ5VyuRAe/jhmslqKoe8KyOlxAUYh/+79yspGCr4KhLp8U UjDeyTHabcYEQff3dNv849LyTd/6fpifI0/0N2jIedG/IQJMlgPicYf/2lbFNttle0Ew CHISmTupVKR6cfyV+5CVCqrCy7TvM+kkrFuvdwHoRirRcPYcZ/rdKix/Xok6YwYEBytZ mOtw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=31j0x/MoA0jVO0KAbVwnxEWmPu5woQ0ennY+Vj1n9CM=; b=ItoCSIsdzcGo5faSeOZ75JiNyyMYwE6ccJuj/nivlHIVFj8rlq2aid6PP14ZNDbzJW rSSPF9Gh3809IeElP2EbFpbHXpxQgr28535GGiNZHgFKR+4B74HnnhTmMJzLnJ3BwlNi u920EtUtjH6yK/ZM6PNX+SgDIYKcjC62RenwaQcMi3jdna/CW04Kek9HD4P9lVwZGzPy fa2XfsN9k6XdGnPPFK0AyXLKuNuGBwgPDWY81fNJZAA8i07UVPBjjB02eEs+5R+nziYb k/IK2VL0wlA4yjYhACKN/6WtyX7JRRJskQZMnUww6nhbDpt+uCa0iL5CJxIMjo0hP7Pm VthA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532hJMmKztnl3ev63EgoSwXQGghbb4Gq2iObcnu6i4dRIsiBtpEY rgVZQnqviwhclLI3yKiwoKA5sTha1bR4nvH4o3Tv1eKnnEA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+/QrT9VofTi8sIh5idMiEBWNrLsuw6dj2I4N4vhCq94viXRcH7lK+yxDhRtRiXUsiKaCAZP0afH8OSLJmvwI= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4e0c:: with SMTP id g12mr8021726wmh.136.1597229849835; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:57:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Davide Bettio Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 12:56:54 +0200 Message-ID: To: Carsten Bormann Cc: jsonpath@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Jsonpath] JSONPath or JMESPath X-BeenThere: jsonpath@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: A summary description of the list to be included in the table on this page List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 10:57:33 -0000 Hello, On 20200811, at 18:30, Carsten Bormann wrote: > Sure. So what are the advantages of JMESPath over JSONPath that are not = about what we=E2=80=99ve set out to do here? The main difference I found so far is that JMESPath supports functions, which is IMHO an useful feature, however there are 2 major drawbacks: - Increased implementation complexity compared to JSONPath (my Elixir JSONPath implementation counts a few hundred lines of code). - JMESPath expressions might be computational heavier, since it has support for functions such as sort, avg, map, etc... that might be expensive on huge datasets. In my opinion the right balance between powerfulness and enabling simple implementations has been so far one of the key factors that made JSONPath popular over other alternatives, even if it lacks support for aggregation functions. I also realize that exists a kind of hierarchy between existing competing solutions, and each one has valid use cases: JSONPointer: no computation (hence deterministic processing time), returns just a subtree JSONPath: allows filtering and projections, however the result is still a subset of the original dataset JMESPath: allows computations (some of them expensive), and the output value might not exist in the original JSON object At the moment JSONPointer and JMESPath have complete specs, while JSONPath doesn't. Regards, Davide Bettio.