3 ms·
have you considered adopting the jsonpath syntax? it would be more javascripty and would be another implementation (or a superset) of jsonpath http://goessner
by marianoguerra 14y ago
have you considered adopting the jsonpath syntax?
it would be more javascripty and would be another implementation (or a superset) of jsonpath
http://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/ http://goessner.net/articles/JsonPath/
http://code.google.com/p/jsonpath/ http://code.google.com/p/jsonpath/
https://github.com/joshbuddy/jsonpath https://github.com/joshbuddy/jsonpath
https://github.com/marianoguerra/jsonpath-scala https://github.com/marianoguerra/jsonpath-scala
- angryamoeba 14y agoAuthor here. I wanted to try something a little lighter than jsonpath and with a specific mode of (node collection|descent) that allowed set arithmetic to be the primary means of comparisons and assertions. This allowed me to obviate the need for scoped AND/OR structures and instead provide a broad range of assertion options using superset, subset, disjoint and joint set operations. It's most certainly not perfect, but I had fun experimenting with it.
- marianoguerra 14y agoit's a nice project, and if it adds something extra then go for it :) but sometimes I think jsonpath should be more visible and it's not, that's why I was trying to avoid fragmentation for the same solution. But as you said, it tries a different approach so it makes sense to use a different syntax.