Stream: implementers
Topic: RFC 7386 JSON Merge Patch
Igor Sirkovich (Jul 12 2018 at 04:03):
I'm wondering if there was any discussion of RFC 7396 JSON Merge Patch and if there is any plan to implement it in FHIR.
Christiaan Knaap (Jul 12 2018 at 13:08):
The PATCH operation for JSON is currently defined as jsonpatch (http://jsonpatch.com/). What would be gained if that would be JSON Merge Patch?
Igor Sirkovich (Jul 12 2018 at 14:26):
I might be wrong (I'm just starting looking into this), but it seems JSON Merge Patch is a much simpler solution than normal Patch.
nicola (RIO/SS) (Jul 12 2018 at 14:28):
We discussed this here - https://github.com/fhir-fuel/fhir-fuel.github.io/issues/9
Join discussion.
Igor Sirkovich (Jul 12 2018 at 17:16):
Thank you @nicola (RIO/SS) . I'm going to present various update options to our development team and if JSON Merge Patch emerges as a favorite approach, I would definitely join this discussion. At this point, I just wanted to gather as much information as possible on Update approaches in FHIR, but couldn't locate anything related to RFC 7386 JSON Merge Patch.
nicola (RIO/SS) (Jul 12 2018 at 18:41):
please put your +1 on github ;)
Grahame Grieve (Jul 16 2018 at 00:32):
we never discussed rfc 7396 - no one brought it up
Grahame Grieve (Jul 16 2018 at 00:32):
how would it be different?
Jenni Syed (Jul 16 2018 at 21:56):
Here is a good comparison: https://erosb.github.io/post/json-patch-vs-merge-patch/
I thought we did discuss a bit and the array piece was a killer, as well as invalid json not being able to be failed on the merge patch
Igor Sirkovich (Jul 18 2018 at 01:44):
Thank you Jenni, this is a good example. JSON Merge Patch looks simpler, but, as you said, has some serious limitations. I had presented this anyway among other options to our dev team, but the decision was made to avoid any patches and to stick to a regular update using full resource representation.
nicola (RIO/SS) (Jul 18 2018 at 08:56):
I think, patch and merge can coexists as xml & json patch do. We can send specific parameter, which defines merge/patch engine - up to piece of js code :)
Grahame Grieve (Jul 18 2018 at 09:22):
content-type header would be best
Lloyd McKenzie (Jul 18 2018 at 14:51):
The more options we allow, the greater the complexity for both clients and servers. We support XML & JSON because it's very hard to have clients who work exclusively in one syntax or the other submit a PATCH that uses the other syntax. Are there equally strong arguments for supporting two different JSON diff technologies?
nicola (RIO/SS) (Jul 18 2018 at 15:52):
They both (json patch & merge) are complimentary standards
Last updated: Apr 12 2022 at 19:14 UTC
