5:22 p.m.
Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to filter objects based on
values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My first thought was just to
use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but that runs into issues if the
key actually has a "." in it like this:
var x = {
sites: {
"google.com": {
type: "search engine"
}
}
}
Trying to traverse that object via:
// pseudocode
var filtered = filter({
"x.sites.google.com.type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator for the path
through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think should work so
something like:
// pseudocode
var filtered = filter({
"x..sites..google.com..type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
5:48 p.m.
Hi,
I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no other idea
for the moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
var filtered = filter({
"x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
?
Seb
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to
filter
objects based on values nested inside other objects inside that main
object. My first thought was just to use dot notation to specify the field
we are filtering on but that runs into issues if the key actually has a "."
in it like this:
var x = {
sites: {
"google.com": {
type: "search engine"
}
}
}
Trying to traverse that object via:
// pseudocode
var filtered = filter({
"x.sites.google.com.type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator for
the path through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think
should work so something like:
// pseudocode
var filtered = filter({
"x..sites..google.com..type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
5:52 p.m.
On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no other idea for the
moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
Hmm, the arrows have too much baggage (arrows in typescript and coffeescript, the fat
arrow (=>) making it into es6). Not sure I want to go down that path.
And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
var filtered = filter({
"x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
?
I don't think so. That would still not work and the point was to show that the dots
would really mess stuff up.
Seb
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to filter objects based on
values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My first thought was just to
use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but that runs into issues if the
key actually has a "." in it like this:
var x = {
sites: {
"google.com": {
type: "search engine"
}
}
}
Trying to traverse that object via:
// pseudocode
var filtered = filter({
"x.sites.google.com.type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator for the path
through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think should work so
something like:
// pseudocode
var filtered = filter({
"x..sites..google.com..type": {
data: "search engine"
}
});
Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
5:54 p.m.
Although, I wonder if just requiring users to wrap keys with dots in single quotes would
work. I could then check for that instead of some separator. I think I like that idea
better. Any thoughts on that or anything from anyone else?
On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no other idea for the
moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
Hmm, the arrows have too much baggage (arrows in typescript and coffeescript, the fat
arrow (=>) making it into es6). Not sure I want to go down that path.
> And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
>
> var filtered = filter({
> "x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
> data: "search engine"
> }
> });
>
> ?
I don't think so. That would still not work and the point was to show that the dots
would really mess stuff up.
> Seb
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to filter objects based
on values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My first thought was just
to use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but that runs into issues if
the key actually has a "." in it like this:
>
> var x = {
> sites: {
> "google.com": {
> type: "search engine"
> }
> }
> }
>
> Trying to traverse that object via:
>
> // pseudocode
> var filtered = filter({
> "x.sites.google.com.type": {
> data: "search engine"
> }
> });
>
> would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator for the path
through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think should work so
something like:
>
> // pseudocode
> var filtered = filter({
> "x..sites..google.com..type": {
> data: "search engine"
> }
> });
>
> Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
5:57 p.m.
the single quote idea is a bit more elegant than 2 dots, i can see major typo's
On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:54 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Although, I wonder if just requiring users to wrap keys with dots in
single quotes would work. I could then check for that instead of some separator. I think I
like that idea better. Any thoughts on that or anything from anyone else?
On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no other idea for
the moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
>
> Hmm, the arrows have too much baggage (arrows in typescript and coffeescript, the fat
arrow (=>) making it into es6). Not sure I want to go down that path.
>> And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
>>
>> var filtered = filter({
>> "x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
>> data: "search engine"
>> }
>> });
>>
>> ?
>
> I don't think so. That would still not work and the point was to show that the
dots would really mess stuff up.
>
>> Seb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to filter objects
based on values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My first thought was
just to use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but that runs into
issues if the key actually has a "." in it like this:
>>
>> var x = {
>> sites: {
>> "google.com": {
>> type: "search engine"
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Trying to traverse that object via:
>>
>> // pseudocode
>> var filtered = filter({
>> "x.sites.google.com.type": {
>> data: "search engine"
>> }
>> });
>>
>> would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator for the
path through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think should
work so something like:
>>
>> // pseudocode
>> var filtered = filter({
>> "x..sites..google.com..type": {
>> data: "search engine"
>> }
>> });
>>
>> Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
6:24 p.m.
Isn't it possible to provide an "example" object? I understand that this
makes things way harder, but it would solve naturally the "weird key scenario"
On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Kris Borchers wrote:
Although, I wonder if just requiring users to wrap keys with dots in
single quotes would work. I could then check for that instead of some separator. I think I
like that idea better. Any thoughts on that or anything from anyone else?
On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no other idea for
the moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
>
> Hmm, the arrows have too much baggage (arrows in typescript and coffeescript, the fat
arrow (=>) making it into es6). Not sure I want to go down that path.
>> And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
>>
>> var filtered = filter({
>> "x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
>> data: "search engine"
>> }
>> });
>>
>> ?
>
> I don't think so. That would still not work and the point was to show that the
dots would really mess stuff up.
>
>> Seb
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to filter objects
based on values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My first thought was
just to use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but that runs into
issues if the key actually has a "." in it like this:
>>
>> var x = {
>> sites: {
>> "google.com": {
>> type: "search engine"
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Trying to traverse that object via:
>>
>> // pseudocode
>> var filtered = filter({
>> "x.sites.google.com.type": {
>> data: "search engine"
>> }
>> });
>>
>> would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator for the
path through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think should
work so something like:
>>
>> // pseudocode
>> var filtered = filter({
>> "x..sites..google.com..type": {
>> data: "search engine"
>> }
>> });
>>
>> Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
-- qmx
6:26 p.m.
Can you elaborate on the "example" object? Not sure what you mean.
On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
Isn't it possible to provide an "example" object? I
understand that this makes things way harder, but it would solve naturally the "weird
key scenario"
On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Kris Borchers wrote:
> Although, I wonder if just requiring users to wrap keys with dots in single quotes
would work. I could then check for that instead of some separator. I think I like that
idea better. Any thoughts on that or anything from anyone else?
>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no other idea
for the moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
>>
>> Hmm, the arrows have too much baggage (arrows in typescript and coffeescript, the
fat arrow (=>) making it into es6). Not sure I want to go down that path.
>>> And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
>>>
>>> var filtered = filter({
>>> "x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
>>> data: "search engine"
>>> }
>>> });
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>> I don't think so. That would still not work and the point was to show that
the dots would really mess stuff up.
>>
>>> Seb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>> Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to filter
objects based on values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My first
thought was just to use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but that
runs into issues if the key actually has a "." in it like this:
>>>
>>> var x = {
>>> sites: {
>>> "google.com": {
>>> type: "search engine"
>>> }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Trying to traverse that object via:
>>>
>>> // pseudocode
>>> var filtered = filter({
>>> "x.sites.google.com.type": {
>>> data: "search engine"
>>> }
>>> });
>>>
>>> would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator for
the path through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think should
work so something like:
>>>
>>> // pseudocode
>>> var filtered = filter({
>>> "x..sites..google.com..type": {
>>> data: "search engine"
>>> }
>>> });
>>>
>>> Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
-- qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
6:32 p.m.
filter({
site:{
'google.com':false
}
});
On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Kris Borchers wrote:
Can you elaborate on the "example" object? Not sure what
you mean.
On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
> Isn't it possible to provide an "example" object? I understand that
this makes things way harder, but it would solve naturally the "weird key
scenario"
>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Kris Borchers wrote:
>
>> Although, I wonder if just requiring users to wrap keys with dots in single
quotes would work. I could then check for that instead of some separator. I think I like
that idea better. Any thoughts on that or anything from anyone else?
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no other
idea for the moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
>>>
>>> Hmm, the arrows have too much baggage (arrows in typescript and coffeescript,
the fat arrow (=>) making it into es6). Not sure I want to go down that path.
>>>> And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
>>>>
>>>> var filtered = filter({
>>>> "x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
>>>> data: "search engine"
>>>> }
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>
>>> I don't think so. That would still not work and the point was to show
that the dots would really mess stuff up.
>>>
>>>> Seb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>>> Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to filter
objects based on values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My first
thought was just to use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but that
runs into issues if the key actually has a "." in it like this:
>>>>
>>>> var x = {
>>>> sites: {
>>>> "google.com": {
>>>> type: "search engine"
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Trying to traverse that object via:
>>>>
>>>> // pseudocode
>>>> var filtered = filter({
>>>> "x.sites.google.com.type": {
>>>> data: "search engine"
>>>> }
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>> would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own separator
for the path through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which I think
should work so something like:
>>>>
>>>> // pseudocode
>>>> var filtered = filter({
>>>> "x..sites..google.com..type": {
>>>> data: "search engine"
>>>> }
>>>> });
>>>>
>>>> Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> -- qmx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
-- qmx
6:52 p.m.
I think I will try the object method first. I think I have thought of a way to do it
without too much insanity. We'll see :-P
On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:32 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
filter({
site:{
'google.com':false
}
});
On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Kris Borchers wrote:
> Can you elaborate on the "example" object? Not sure what you mean.
>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 11:24 AM, Douglas Campos <qmx(a)qmx.me> wrote:
>
>> Isn't it possible to provide an "example" object? I understand that
this makes things way harder, but it would solve naturally the "weird key
scenario"
>>
>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Kris Borchers wrote:
>>
>>> Although, I wonder if just requiring users to wrap keys with dots in single
quotes would work. I could then check for that instead of some separator. I think I like
that idea better. Any thoughts on that or anything from anyone else?
>>>
>>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:52 AM, Kris Borchers <kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 13, 2012, at 10:48 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> I'm not really confortable with the double dot, but I have no
other idea for the moment :) (maybe '->' ?).
>>>>
>>>> Hmm, the arrows have too much baggage (arrows in typescript and
coffeescript, the fat arrow (=>) making it into es6). Not sure I want to go down that
path.
>>>>> And should your pseudo code not be written this way :
>>>>>
>>>>> var filtered = filter({
>>>>> "x.sites.'google.com'.type": {
>>>>> data: "search engine"
>>>>> }
>>>>> });
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think so. That would still not work and the point was to show
that the dots would really mess stuff up.
>>>>
>>>>> Seb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, Kris Borchers
<kris(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hey all, I am trying to enhance the filter method to be able to
filter objects based on values nested inside other objects inside that main object. My
first thought was just to use dot notation to specify the field we are filtering on but
that runs into issues if the key actually has a "." in it like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> var x = {
>>>>> sites: {
>>>>> "google.com": {
>>>>> type: "search engine"
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> Trying to traverse that object via:
>>>>>
>>>>> // pseudocode
>>>>> var filtered = filter({
>>>>> "x.sites.google.com.type": {
>>>>> data: "search engine"
>>>>> }
>>>>> });
>>>>>
>>>>> would fail. I'm wondering if we should just define our own
separator for the path through the object. We could use ".." (double-dot) which
I think should work so something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> // pseudocode
>>>>> var filtered = filter({
>>>>> "x..sites..google.com..type": {
>>>>> data: "search engine"
>>>>> }
>>>>> });
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I can separate on ".." and parse that way. Thoughts?
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>> -- qmx
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
-- qmx
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
4404
days inactive
4404
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Douglas Campos -
Kris Borchers -
Lucas Holmquist -
Sebastien Blanc