I do both. If the JS is enabled then you do not waste system resources processing the page looking for validation errors, if JS is disbaled you are covered. I think you should always do both: helps ensure data integrity and offers a second level of protection.
Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:38 AM Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > What kind if validation would you do on the server side for a form? I think > (probably quite reckless) that most people will have JS enabled etc....I do > see what you mean though - then again, if I was going 100% server side I > wouldnt bother with Client Side...can be arsed doing it twice. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kola Oyedeji [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 July 2003 15:33 > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > > > Well if the extra time used to generate the javascript used in cfform is > huge performance hit then that would be a good reason not to use it. Of > course we all realize we need server side validation but what's often > overlooked is the amount of server processing that can be reduced as a > result of using Javascript. Also in the absence of a good api like the > ones provided by pengoworks, building your own involves the minor task > of ensuring its cross browser compatible. > > > Kola > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: webguy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: 22 July 2003 15:21 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > >> > >> Matt Liotta did some checking and it appears that for every sub tag > in > >> cfform (e.g. <cfinput ..> ) the page rendering times grow > exponentially. > >> > >> That was in up3 i think. > >> > >> WG > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Sent: 22 July 2003 15:08 > >> To: CF-Talk > >> Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0 > >> > >> > >> I suppose so. I have used it in the past quite a bit, but found it > fell > >> short in some areas or I had to combine it with additional JS. It > just > >> made > >> more sense to me to use one or the other, and since the qForms API or > >> even > >> custom written stuff was more flexible I have just kind of stuck with > >> that. > >> Nothing against really, I just often need more than what it offers. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Kola Oyedeji" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:03 AM > >> Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > >> > >> > >> > Interesting I used to be of the same mind set, however after taking > >> > another look I think the cfform validation (not the built in > cfserver > >> > validation) is quite useful. > >> > > >> > Why re-invent the wheel? Granted its not that flexible but when you > >> > quickly want to knock up a form with a few required fields it saves > on > >> > development time. > >> > > >> > Mike I'd suggest another look, they may be more useful( or useless > ;-) > >> ) > >> > than you think. > >> > > >> > > >> > Kola > >> > > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> > >> From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> Sent: 22 July 2003 14:53 > >> > >> To: CF-Talk > >> > >> Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0 > >> > >> > >> > >> Thats a good question :-) > >> > >> > >> > >> Some things in CF are available, yet not recommended by alot of > >> > users; > >> > >> cfform is one of them. > >> > >> In terms of validation and having more flexibility Id recommend > >> using > >> > >> qForms > >> > >> API (www.pengoworks.com). > >> > >> > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >> From: "Angel Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2003 9:49 AM > >> > >> Subject: RE: CFForm madness. 0_0 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > What's so horrible about using CFFORM for simple validation > for a > >> > field > >> > >> > that's either required/not required?? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Isn't that why it is included in CFMX? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -Gel > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > >> > From: Robertson-Ravo, Neil (RX) > >> > >> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > >> > >> > the fact you are using cfform is sheer madness! > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
