the information being passed in the url could be tampered with or altered
(change ID from "x" to "y"). Although it could potentially be done via a
form, it is harder.
-----Original Message-----
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:44 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
In my opinion stick with one scope, form if you are using POST.
I'm curious in what circumstances a query string is superior to a hidden
field from a design perspective.
Thanks,
Calvin
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Best Practices
sometimes better not to scope (admittedly not very often)....
i.e. a search form where parameters can come in either the URL or FORM
scope... what do you do... scope them out and have double the coding
work?
what would be the best practice in that case?
-dc
-----Original Message-----
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13 November 2003 14:25
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Best Practices
The question was theoritical in nature, not everyone scopes
variables, I'm sure we all realize.
- Calvin
----- Original Message -----
From: Philip Arnold
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: Re[2]: Best Practices
> And incidentally, I wonder how it is handled if you send the
> same named variable in the query string and a form field
with
> method POST... If it were 2 form fields with the same name,
> you would typically get a comma delimited list, but I
suspect
> that it might not work that way with the query string and
> form field technique.
Well, it would hand the one that you scope it to
If you ask for URL.myVar, then you'd get the URL version
If you ask for form.myVar, then you'd get the Form version
You DO scope your variables, don't you?
_____
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
