Thanks Jacques
Regards
Scott
On 7/06/2010, at 9:15 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Ha well, I did not thought about that, thanks!
>
> I revert...
>
> Jacques
>
> Scott Gray wrote:
>> Hi Jacques,
>>
>> In a small way it does hurt because whenever we use "post" instead of "get"
>> the user will
Ha well, I did not thought about that, thanks!
I revert...
Jacques
Scott Gray wrote:
Hi Jacques,
In a small way it does hurt because whenever we use "post" instead of "get" the user
will be prompted "do you want to submit the
form again?" when they click the back button on the browser to go
Hi Jacques,
In a small way it does hurt because whenever we use "post" instead of "get" the
user will be prompted "do you want to submit the form again?" when they click
the back button on the browser to go back to one of those screens.
But yeah I wouldn't rely on searching alone unless you are
I quickly used regex S/R. I wrongly put the 2 orderview (I removed a lot more) but thought the other were real actions as they have
Edit as prefix in their names. Actually I did not check if they were calling an event. I just did and you are right.
Anyway it does not hurt, and it's finally a goo
On second look there were no targets in this commit that needed to be secured.
Regards
Scott
On 7/06/2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
> Quite a few of those links don't actually look like they needed to be secured
> i.e. there is no event attached to that uri, orderview for example.
>
> Reg
Quite a few of those links don't actually look like they needed to be secured
i.e. there is no event attached to that uri, orderview for example.
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 7/06/2010, at 7:02 PM, jler...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jleroux
> Date: Mon Jun 7 07:02
