On 12/12/13 16:17, Olemis Lang wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Gary Martin <[email protected]>wrote:
On 12/12/13 15:25, Olemis Lang wrote:
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Gary Martin <[email protected]
wrote:
[...]
While we could resort to POSTing instead, I can see the reasoning behind
not doing that. Pragmatism would probably trump such reasoning though. I
think other solutions would either limit the field sizes or warn of
possible loss of data over some limit. Perhaps I have missed something
though.
IMO let's use POST
I think that is probably the correct answer too but I am tempted to commit
the patch as is and let Antony continue with enhancements if he wishes. I
am unaware of any regressions from his current approach so I think this is
already much better behaviour.
Yes , my intention was not to suggest that current solution should not be
committed . However at least in theory there are two aspects missing IMO
1. use POST
2. testing
* though this one might be impossible *now* since js code is involved
Fair point.. there could conceivably be tests. Anyway, I have committed
the code - my only modifications at this point have been minor style
changes.
I've opened #727 for further work. If Antony is interested in
continuing, he will, of course, be very welcome to!
Cheers,
Gary
