I agree, I think you should *always* do both (although I'm guilty of not doing this myself) - not just for security but for performance and the user experience, I think many people view client side javascript as optional.
Kola >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael T. Tangorre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 22 July 2003 15:49 >> To: CF-Talk >> Subject: Re: CFForm madness. 0_0 >> >> 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
